Alignment to College and Career Ready Standards: Overall Summary

The instructional materials reviewed for Grade 7 partially meet the expectations for alignment to the CCSSM. The instructional materials partially meet the expectations for gateway 1 because they meet the expectations for focus on major work and partially meet the expectations for coherence. Since the materials partially meet the expectations for gateway 1, evidence was collected in gateway 2. The instructional materials partially meet the expectations for rigor and balance and partially meet the expectations for practice-content connections. Since the materials partially meet the expectations for gateway 1 and partially meet the expectations for gateway 2, they do not meet the expectations for alignment to the CCSSM.

See Rating Scale
Understanding Gateways

Alignment

|

Partially Meets Expectations

Gateway 1:

Focus & Coherence

0
7
12
14
11
12-14
Meets Expectations
8-11
Partially Meets Expectations
0-7
Does Not Meet Expectations

Gateway 2:

Rigor & Mathematical Practices

0
10
16
18
14
16-18
Meets Expectations
11-15
Partially Meets Expectations
0-10
Does Not Meet Expectations

Usability

|

Not Rated

Not Rated

Gateway 3:

Usability

0
22
31
38
0
31-38
Meets Expectations
23-30
Partially Meets Expectations
0-22
Does Not Meet Expectations

Gateway One

Focus & Coherence

Partially Meets Expectations

+
-
Gateway One Details

The instructional materials reviewed for Grade 7 partially meet the expectations for focus and coherence in the CCSSM. For focus, the instructional materials meet the criteria for the time devoted to the major work of the grade. Of the days allocated in the timeline, 64 percent align to the major work of this grade. For coherence, supporting work is rarely connected to the focus of the grade. Coherence is evident in the instructional materials including problems and activities that serve to connect two or more clusters in a domain and that connect two or more domains in a grade. Overall, the Grade 7 materials are partially coherent and consistent with the standards.

Criterion 1a

Materials do not assess topics before the grade level in which the topic should be introduced.
2/2
+
-
Criterion Rating Details

The instructional materials reviewed for Grade 7 meet the expectations for focus on both assessment and major clusters. The summative assessment of each packet assesses topics at this grade level without assessing any content from future grades. The materials suggest 64 percent of the days for major work of the grade, and there is support from content in the non-major clusters that directly reinforces major work. Overall, the instructional materials meet the criteria for grade-level assessment as well as spending the majority of class time on the major clusters of the grade.

Indicator 1a

The instructional material assesses the grade-level content and, if applicable, content from earlier grades. Content from future grades may be introduced but students should not be held accountable on assessments for future expectations.
2/2
+
-
Indicator Rating Details

The instructional materials reviewed for Grade 7 meet the expectations for focus within assessment. Overall, the instructional material does not assess any content from future grades within the summative assessment sections of each packet.

For this indicator the summative test for each packet was considered.

  • All assessments and topics relate to Grade 7 standards or below.
  • No content above grade level was assessed on the packet summative test.

Criterion 1b

Students and teachers using the materials as designed devote the large majority of class time in each grade K-8 to the major work of the grade.
4/4
+
-
Criterion Rating Details

The instructional materials reviewed for Grade 7 meet the expectations for focus on both assessment and major clusters. The summative assessment of each packet assesses topics at this grade level without assessing any content from future grades. The materials suggest 64 percent of the days for major work of the grade, and there is support from content in the non-major clusters that directly reinforces major work. Overall, the instructional materials meet the criteria for grade-level assessment as well as spending the majority of class time on the major clusters of the grade.

Indicator 1b

Instructional material spends the majority of class time on the major cluster of each grade.
4/4
+
-
Indicator Rating Details

The instructional materials reviewed for Grade 7 meet the expectations for focus within major clusters. Overall, the instructional material spends the majority of class time on the major clusters of each grade.

To determine this, three perspectives were evaluated: 1) the number of units/packets devoted to major work, 2) the number of lessons devoted to major work, and 3) the number of days devoted to major work. The number of days devoted to major work is the most reflective for this indicator because it specifically addresses the amount of class time spent on concepts. The conclusion is based on that data.

The number of days suggested by the publisher for the “enriched” pacing option is the one most dedicated to grade-level work with the least review.

  • Units/Packets – percentage of time spent on major work is 74 percent.
  • Lessons – percentage of time spent on major work is 64 percent.
  • Days – the percentage of time spent on major work is 64 percent.
  • Also the non-major clusters were evaluated to determine if they could count due to how strongly they support major work of the grade. Some evidence, such as Packet 16: Plane and Solid Figures, does a significant amount of work with formulas which supports 7.EE: Expressions and Equations.
  • While 64 percent is just short of the 65 percent - 85 percent standard, the support in the non-major clusters strengthens Grade 7 so that the majority of time is spent on major work.

Criterion 1c - 1f

Coherence: Each grade's instructional materials are coherent and consistent with the Standards.
5/8
+
-
Criterion Rating Details

The instructional materials reviewed for Grade 7 partially meet the expectations for coherence and consistency with the CCSSM. There is limited evidence of supporting content enhancing coherence by reinforcing the major work of the grade because so much of the content is stand-alone.

The Grade 7 materials provide a list of previous skills/knowledge that is foundational for the current work, but they don’t explicitly tie the list to lessons. The materials include lessons that serve to connect two or more clusters in a domain, or two or more domains in a grade. The materials also develop by the grade-by-grade progressions in the standards. However, most of the lessons take a surface approach to standards – they meet the standard, but without developing the depth of understanding that allows students to apply and transfer the learning.

Overall, the Grade 7 materials partially address the key aspects of coherence and consistency within the standards.

Indicator 1c

Supporting content enhances focus and coherence simultaneously by engaging students in the major work of the grade.
1/2
+
-
Indicator Rating Details

The instructional materials reviewed for Grade 7 partially meet the expectations for the supporting content enhancing focus and coherence simultaneously by engaging students in the major work of the grade. To determine this, the connections that the teacher guide stated were considered, and the student lessons were reviewed to validate the connections from the teacher guide as well as determine if there were missed opportunities to make strong connections.

Some examples include:

  • The strongest support comes from geometry and statistics supporting the major work of Expressions and Equations. Units 14 (Angles), 15 (Scale Factor), and 16 (Surface Area) support 7.EE.A and 7.EE.B. All of these require the students to use formulas/equations to solve problems.
  • Unit 15 also has a strong connection to computation concepts (7.NS.A).
  • There were instances where the supporting work missed opportunities to connect to major work such as Unit 15, which could have developed the connection to Ratios/Proportions related to the scale factors.
  • In Packet 13, Lesson 3, standards 7.RP.A, 7.SP.A, and 7.SP.B are connected as students make inferences about populations of fish in a lake after a sampling experiment. Four days are allotted for this lesson. However the connection does not extend beyond the “fish in a lake” example and there is concern that students would not be able to transfer the learning just from one specific problem.
  • In Packet 7, all seven days of the unit are devoted to supporting work (7.SP.C), but on only three out of seven of those days (in Lesson 3) are students engaged in connecting the supporting work to the major work of the grade level.
  • Many of the packets contain below grade-level content, which limits the opportunity for supporting content to enhance the major work of the grade.

Indicator 1d

The amount of content designated for one grade level is viable for one school year in order to foster coherence between grades.
1/2
+
-
Indicator Rating Details

The instructional materials reviewed for Grade 7 partially meet the expectations for the amount of content designated for one grade level being viable for one school year in order to foster coherence between grades.

The Teacher’s Guide offers six different pacing plans –

  • Three for traditional schedules.
  • Three for block schedules.
  • Each has the Modified Plan for students who require extensive review.
  • The Basic Plan for students who require some review.
  • The Enriched Plan for students who only need minimal review.
  • All of them plan for 32 weeks of instruction.

For the report the Traditional Enriched Plan was used because it best represented a focus on grade-level work.

The pacing provided by the publisher is reasonable for lessons to be completed in the time suggested.

  • Lessons plus a catch-up day (built into each unit) and the assessment day equal 155.5 days
  • Falls within the 140-190 range suggested
  • According to the Scope and Sequence, all Grade 7 standards are included.

However, there are concerns:

  • There is concern that the depth of learning would not adequately prepare students for the next grade level.
  • The packets take a surface approach to standards – they meet the standard, but without developing the depth of understanding that allows students to apply and transfer the learning.
  • In addition, there is concern about the three pacing suggestions.
    • Students needing more review early in the year spend equal or less time on units later in the year, which is new material.
    • It is not clear how students who need Modified Plan A could finish all packets in the same amount of time as students on Enriched Plan C, though there are suggestions about items that could be omitted.

Overall, the number of days suggested is viable, but the depth and pacing creates cause for concern.

Indicator 1e

Materials are consistent with the progressions in the Standards i. Materials develop according to the grade-by-grade progressions in the Standards. If there is content from prior or future grades, that content is clearly identified and related to grade-level work ii. Materials give all students extensive work with grade-level problems iii. Materials relate grade level concepts explicitly to prior knowledge from earlier grades.
1/2
+
-
Indicator Rating Details

The instructional materials reviewed for Grade 7 partially meet the expectations for the material to be consistent with the progressions in the CCSSM. Content from prior grades is clearly identified, although materials do not always relate grade-level concepts explicitly to prior knowledge from earlier grades within each lesson. Connections are not made to content in future grades. Overall, the materials in Grade 7 identify the progressions from prior grades in the standards.

  • The teacher guide includes a page delineating how the major work standards for Grade 7 intersect with major clusters in grades 5-8.
  • Each packet lists an overview of standards being addressed including foundational standards that have been taught and learned previously.
  • In general, lessons are taught as a series of three, where each builds or connects to the one before.

· Teachers are provided with sufficient information to help see the connections in the standards, tasks, packets and lessons.

· There are standards where the materials are only partially representative of the progressions. For example: 7.RP is included in four units (Units 6, 11, 12, and 13). In Units 11 and 12, 7.RP is addressed with 7.NS, 7.EE and 6.RP as students use proportional reasoning to solve a variety of problems. The work with ratios and proportional reasoning is very specific to certain tasks throughout the units. Overall understanding of the concept of proportionality as a whole and representation of proportionality in various forms is limited because of lack of depth.

The instructional materials reviewed for Grade 7 partially meet the expectation of giving all students extensive work with grade-level problems. Overall, the materials do not consistently give students of varying abilities extensive work with grade-level problems.

  • Not all students have the opportunity to engage deeply with problems related to grade-level standards as the material is not as rigorous as needed and doesn't have the depth that is needed to truly master the standards.
  • Each packet primarily contains problem sets designed to help develop students' procedural skill/fluency.
  • Some of the performance tasks and proficiency assessments do allow for more application and rigorous engagement with the standards.
  • It is recommended in the teachers guide that struggling students spend the majority of time on basic lessons, skill builders and review and to avoid extensions and more challenging questions. This is limiting their interaction and mastery of grade-level standards.

The instructional materials reviewed for Grade 7 partially meet the expectation of relating grade-level concepts explicitly to prior knowledge from earlier grades. Overall, materials only generally relate grade-level concepts explicitly to prior knowledge from earlier grades.

  • Each module lists the foundational standards at the beginning of the module to explicitly connect prior learning to current learning.
  • It is more beneficial to see these connections listed in the lessons as they occur.
  • Connections to lessons and/or topics from previous grade levels that will be helpful in upcoming lessons are frequently reviewed in the “warm-up” at the beginning of a given topic, though no explicit connections are made for the students.

Indicator 1f

Materials foster coherence through connections at a single grade, where appropriate and required by the Standards i. Materials include learning objectives that are visibly shaped by CCSSM cluster headings. ii. Materials include problems and activities that serve to connect two or more clusters in a domain, or two or more domains in a grade, in cases where these connections are natural and important.
2/2
+
-
Indicator Rating Details

The instructional materials reviewed for Grade 7 meet the expectations for fostering coherence through connections at a single grade, where appropriate and required by the standards. Overall, materials include learning objectives that are visibly shaped by CCSSM cluster headings.

  • Each packet lists the lessons with the student outcomes clearly stated, which are easily aligned to CCSSM standards and cluster headings.
  • In general, lessons and tasks require students to demonstrate the standards. However, they rarely connect these concepts beyond what naturally occurs with lessons following one another.
  • The teacher guide provides a page of content emphasis by cluster.
  • Each packet identifies the standards addressed and bolds the major cluster.
  • Occasionally a lesson title will not have a clear connection – such as “Fish in a Lake” – however the learning objective clarifies the connection.

The instructional materials include problems and activities that serve to connect two or more clusters in a domain. They include problems and activities that connect two or more domains in a grade, in cases where these connections are natural and important. Overall the materials foster coherence through connections at the Grade 7.

  • In packets 6, 8, 9 and 12, students are provided the opportunity to engage in proportional reasoning, while focusing on expressions and equations across the full range of rational numbers. (7.RP.A, 7.NS.A, 7.EE.B)
  • However, in general, there is limited focus on writing expressions and equations.
  • There are other natural connections evident such as using formulas to solve problems (7.EE.B, 7.G.B) and students using properties of operations to write equivalent equations and use the equations to look at the problem from a different view (7.NS.A, 7.EE.A).

Gateway Two

Rigor & Mathematical Practices

Partially Meets Expectations

+
-
Gateway Two Details

The instructional material for Grade 7 partially meets the expectation for rigor and mathematical practices. The materials reviewed for Grade 7 only partially meet the expectation for rigor by not providing a balance of all three aspects of rigor throughout the lessons. Within the concept-development sections of each lesson, the mathematical topic is developed through understanding as indicated by the standards and cluster headings. In Grade 7, procedural skill and fluency is evident in almost every unit, which develop the relevant standards. However, application of the mathematical concepts is lacking throughout each unit. Overall, while conceptual development and procedural skills and fluency are fairly strong, the application is so disproportionately lacking that the three aspects are not balanced within the units. Therefore, the Grade 7 materials only partially meet the criteria for rigor and balance.

The materials reviewed for Grade 7 partially meet the criterion of meaningfully connecting the CCSSM and the MPs. Materials attend to the full meaning of some practice standards, but not all. Throughout the lessons, though, the materials are lacking in prompting students to construct viable arguments concerning grade-level mathematics. The teacher guide will occasionally assist teachers in engaging students in this task. On the other hand, materials very explicitly attend to the specialized language of mathematics. Correct mathematical terminology is always used, enforced, and reinforced. Overall, the materials partially meet the expectations for Gateway 2 in rigor and mathematical practices.

Criterion 2a - 2d

Rigor and Balance: Each grade's instructional materials reflect the balances in the Standards and help students meet the Standards' rigorous expectations, by helping students develop conceptual understanding, procedural skill and fluency, and application.
6/8
+
-
Criterion Rating Details

The materials reviewed for Grade 7 only partially meet the expectation for this criterion by not providing a balance of all three aspects of rigor throughout the lessons. Within the concept-development sections of each lesson, the mathematical topic is developed through understanding as indicated by the standards and cluster headings. In Grade 7, procedural skill and fluency is evident in almost every unit, which develop the relevant standards. However, application of the mathematical concepts is lacking throughout each unit. Overall, while conceptual development and procedural skills and fluency are fairly strong, the application is so disproportionately lacking that the three aspects are not balanced within the units. Overall, the Grade 7 materials partially meet the criteria for rigor and balance.

Indicator 2a

Attention to conceptual understanding: Materials develop conceptual understanding of key mathematical concepts, especially where called for in specific content standards or cluster headings.
2/2
+
-
Indicator Rating Details

Materials develop conceptual understanding of key mathematical concepts, especially where called for in specific content standards or cluster headings meeting the expectations for this indicator.

  • Generally, lessons develop understanding through explicit discussion outlined in the teacher lessons. Conceptual understanding is evident throughout nearly all lessons and lesson plans of teacher instruction. Students are consistently being asked to verify their work and explain for understanding. Teacher questioning during instruction is designed to lead to conceptual understanding.
  • Teacher and student prompts often include terms like introduce, discuss, review, demonstrate, compare, explain, challenge, show how, draw, represent, give an example, describe, why, prove, create, notice, etc., that encourage students to demonstrate conceptual understanding.
  • Units 1, 3 - 9 and 11 all include work related to the major work clusters that address conceptual understanding (7.NS.A, 7.EE.A).
  • Examples of lessons that develop conceptual thinking include:
    • 1.2: Investigating "⅓" through work with hundreds grid to build understanding of terminating versus repeating decimals.
    • 3.1: Develops positive and negative numbers as hot and cold pieces and uses counter model and temperature change model.
    • 4.3: Extending understanding of integer addition and subtraction to rational numbers, using number lines
    • 5.1: Connecting models (counter model, temp change model, number lines) to multiplication of integers
    • 5.2: Building conceptual understanding of sign rules for multiplication/division of integers using patterns on coordinate
    • 8.2: Using patterns in hundreds chart to write equations.
    • 8.3/9.1: Using polygon pieces to write expressions.
    • 9.2: Solving equations using concept of balance and tape diagrams.
  • It needs to be noted, however, that beyond the lessons, 12 of the 16 units did not call for students to demonstrate conceptual understanding on the summative assessments.

Indicator 2b

Attention to Procedural Skill and Fluency: Materials give attention throughout the year to individual standards that set an expectation of procedural skill and fluency.
2/2
+
-
Indicator Rating Details

Materials give attention throughout the year to individual standards that set an expectation of procedural skill and fluency meeting the expectations for this indicator.

  • Procedural skill and fluency that develop the major clusters that emphasize it (7.EE.A.1, 7.EE.B.2, and 7.NS.A) is evident in 12 of the 16 units.
  • Examples found in lessons include:
    • 4.3: Procedural practice of adding and subtracting rational numbers
    • 6.3: Procedural practice multiplying and dividing rational numbers
    • 8.1/8.2: Procedural practice with equivalent expressions
    • 9.3: Procedural practice with solving equations
    • 12.1: Procedural practice of finding percent increase and percent decrease
  • Besides an abundance of examples throughout the lessons, there are also skill builder activities in each unit designed to develop procedural skill and lead to fluency.
  • In the teacher guide, there are often multiple "Introduce, Explore/Summarize, and Practice” sections depending on lesson content that develop procedural skill and fluency.

Indicator 2c

Attention to Applications: Materials are designed so that teachers and students spend sufficient time working with engaging applications of the mathematics, without losing focus on the major work of each grade
1/2
+
-
Indicator Rating Details

The materials partially meet the expectation for being designed so that teachers and students spend sufficient time working with engaging applications of the mathematics, without losing focus on the major work of each grade.

  • Many lessons have application type problems included in them. However, depth of application is a concern, as problems are usually presented independently, with no scaffolding of problems present.
  • In 7 units (1, 2, 3, 7, 13, 14, 15) there was no opportunity for students to engage in application in the major work standards of Grade 7 (7.RP.A, 7.NS.A.3, 7.EE.B.3) at all.
  • In 4 units (4, 5, 8,10) there was limited work devoted to application in the entire unit.
  • Four units (6, 9, 11, 12) had robust opportunities for students to engage in application in the major work standards of Grade 7.
  • In only three assessments were students allowed opportunity for application questions.
  • Twenty of 25 tasks did not allow for students to engage in application problems.

Indicator 2d

Balance: The three aspects of rigor are not always treated together and are not always treated separately. There is a balance of the 3 aspects of rigor within the grade.
1/2
+
-
Indicator Rating Details

The three aspects of rigor are not always treated together and are not always treated separately, meeting the expectations for this indicator. There is only a partial balance of the three aspects of rigor within the grade.

  • Conceptual understanding was the strongest aspect of rigor.
  • Procedural fluency was also strong and was aligned with the major work standards of Grade 7.
  • The lack of opportunity for students to engage in applications and deep problem solving in real world situations was noticeable.
  • Application problems are presented in obvious situations (proportional reasoning, percent, etc.) but should be interwoven into other lessons as well. Depth of application and relevancy to real-world situations needs to be more extensive.
  • In addition, there is not a balance of the three aspects of rigor in included assessments.

Criterion 2e - 2g.iii

Practice-Content Connections: Materials meaningfully connect the Standards for Mathematical Content and the Standards for Mathematical Practice
8/10
+
-
Criterion Rating Details

The materials reviewed for Grade 7 partially meet the criterion of meaningfully connecting the CCSSM and the MPs. The latter are often identified and used to enrich mathematical content. Materials attend to the full meaning of some practice standards. Throughout the lessons, the materials are lacking in prompting students to construct viable arguments concerning grade-level mathematics detailed in the content standards. Students are occasionally directed to explain responses in practice sets and tasks. However, the materials do assist teachers in engaging students in constructing viable arguments and analyzing the arguments of others. Materials also very explicitly attend to the specialized language of mathematics. Correct mathematical terminology is consistently used, enforced, and reinforced. Overall, the materials partially meet the expectations for the practice-content connections criterion.

Indicator 2e

The Standards for Mathematical Practice are identified and used to enrich mathematics content within and throughout each applicable grade.
2/2
+
-
Indicator Rating Details

The MPs are identified and used to enrich mathematics content within and throughout each applicable grade.

  • There is a clear articulation of connection between MPs and content. Materials regularly and meaningfully connect MPs to the CCSSM within and throughout the grade.
  • Every unit identifies the MPs used in the unit both on the student and teacher overview page.
  • In the teacher guide, each unit specifically relates how the listed standards are used in the unit. These are logical connections and integrated with the content.
  • The MPs have also been identified for the quizzes, proficiency challenges, tests, and tasks.
  • MPs are not identified within student materials, but are listed on the back cover along with the CCSSM.
  • There are some instances of under-identification of the MPs, such as:
    • MP 6 “Attend to Precision” is usually identified in situations where precise language is important, but it is rarely included related to problems where precise calculations are important.

Indicator 2f

Materials carefully attend to the full meaning of each practice standard
1/2
+
-
Indicator Rating Details

Materials partially attend to the full meaning of each practice standard.

  • Materials attend to the full meaning of some practice standards.
  • Each practice is addressed multiple times throughout the year.
  • Several MPs are addressed thoroughly – students have opportunities to fully engage with MPs 2, 6, 7 and 8.
  • There are several MPs that do not attend to the full meaning, for example:
    • MP 1: The teacher guide reports its use in 8 of the 16 units, but only a few problems are rich enough to demand that students truly have to make sense of problems and persevere to solve them. Unit 16 has two good problems that cause students to engage in sense-making and that have the potential to develop perseverance.
    • MP 4 and MP 5: Often throughout the student edition, students are directed as to which tools to use rather than having to choose. Similarly, students are often directed to use a certain model, and the model is not usually embedded in a real-world application situation.

Indicator 2g

Emphasis on Mathematical Reasoning: Materials support the Standards' emphasis on mathematical reasoning by:
0/0

Indicator 2g.i

Materials prompt students to construct viable arguments and analyze the arguments of others concerning key grade-level mathematics detailed in the content standards.
1/2
+
-
Indicator Rating Details

Materials occasionally prompt students to construct viable arguments and analyze the arguments of others concerning key grade-level mathematics detailed in the content standards.

  • The materials rarely provide directives for students to help them make connections to constructing viable arguments concerning grade-level mathematics detailed in the content standards. Occasionally materials prompt students to analyze the arguments of others.
  • Students are asked to “explain” often, however that often falls short of the full meaning of the practice.
  • Throughout the discussion portion of each lesson, students are expected to explain the mathematics leading to understanding content and solving problems.
  • Students are also directed to explain responses in problem-set and tasks.
  • There are rare opportunities for students to analyze the work of another - but it is usually in a problem set and not with another student's work within the classroom.

Indicator 2g.ii

Materials assist teachers in engaging students in constructing viable arguments and analyzing the arguments of others concerning key grade-level mathematics detailed in the content standards.
2/2
+
-
Indicator Rating Details

The materials meet the expectation for assisting teachers in engaging students in constructing viable arguments and analyzing the arguments of others concerning key grade-level mathematics detailed in the content standards. Overall, the Teacher's Guide, unlike the student's edition, has consistent prompts for teachers to follow and use for promoting mathematical discussions in the classroom.

  • Materials assist teachers in engaging students in constructing viable arguments and analyzing the arguments of others.
  • There are multiple examples of the teacher materials assisting in engaging students in both constructing viable arguments and analyzing the arguments of others frequently throughout the program through questioning techniques. Some examples of constructing viable arguments include:
    • 5.3: “How can we justify that these numbers are equivalent?”
    • 8.1: “Why is it necessary to subtract 4 from this number of squares?”
    • 11.1: “How do we know that the values of the ratios are equal?”
    • 11.3: “From the numbers in the table, how do you know which store has the better buy?”
    • 11.3: “Why does the Door-to-Door Pizza graph NOT go through the origin?”
    • 12.1: “Why must these problems have different answers?”
  • Some examples of analyzing the arguments of others include:
    • 6.2: “What is Blakely’s shortcut?”
    • 7.1: “What do you think Donny’s aunt means?”
    • 8.1: “What do the lines in Jaime’s sketch mean?”
    • 12.1: “Which estimate do you think is better for the discount of the coat?”
    • 12.1: “How might you determine the original price using Hans’ strategy (…then using Franz’s strategy)?”
    • 12.3: “Jay was unsure how to compute the price he can afford, but he knew it could be more than $92. Do you agree with Jay?”

Indicator 2g.iii

Materials explicitly attend to the specialized language of mathematics.
2/2
+
-
Indicator Rating Details

Materials explicitly attend to the specialized language of mathematics.

  • Materials explicitly attend to the specialized language of mathematics.
  • Correct mathematical terminology is consistently used, enforced, and reinforced.
  • Explicit detail is always used in student-teacher discussion and explanation of process.
  • Each unit starts with a vocabulary list of words used in the unit and students have a “resource guide” to refer to. Throughout the unit, these terms are used in context during instruction, practice, and assessment.
  • There are student lesson questions which specifically focus on the importance of precise language. For example, in Unit 9, on page 14: 11, it says “… explain why this language is not precise.”
  • The terminology that is used in the modules is consistent with the terms in the standards.

Gateway Three

Usability

Not Rated

Criterion 3a - 3e

Use and design facilitate student learning: Materials are well designed and take into account effective lesson structure and pacing.
0/8

Indicator 3a

The underlying design of the materials distinguishes between problems and exercises. In essence, the difference is that in solving problems, students learn new mathematics, whereas in working exercises, students apply what they have already learned to build mastery. Each problem or exercise has a purpose.
0/2

Indicator 3b

Design of assignments is not haphazard: exercises are given in intentional sequences.
0/2

Indicator 3c

There is variety in what students are asked to produce. For example, students are asked to produce answers and solutions, but also, in a grade-appropriate way, arguments and explanations, diagrams, mathematical models, etc.
0/2

Indicator 3d

Manipulatives are faithful representations of the mathematical objects they represent and when appropriate are connected to written methods.
0/2

Indicator 3e

The visual design (whether in print or online) is not distracting or chaotic, but supports students in engaging thoughtfully with the subject.
0/0

Criterion 3f - 3l

Teacher Planning and Learning for Success with CCSS: Materials support teacher learning and understanding of the Standards.
0/8

Indicator 3f

Materials support teachers in planning and providing effective learning experiences by providing quality questions to help guide students' mathematical development.
0/2

Indicator 3g

Materials contain a teacher's edition with ample and useful annotations and suggestions on how to present the content in the student edition and in the ancillary materials. Where applicable, materials include teacher guidance for the use of embedded technology to support and enhance student learning.
0/2

Indicator 3h

Materials contain a teacher's edition (in print or clearly distinguished/accessible as a teacher's edition in digital materials) that contains full, adult-level explanations and examples of the more advanced mathematics concepts in the lessons so that teachers can improve their own knowledge of the subject, as necessary.
0/2

Indicator 3i

Materials contain a teacher's edition (in print or clearly distinguished/accessible as a teacher's edition in digital materials) that explains the role of the specific grade-level mathematics in the context of the overall mathematics curriculum for kindergarten through grade twelve.
0/2

Indicator 3j

Materials provide a list of lessons in the teacher's edition (in print or clearly distinguished/accessible as a teacher's edition in digital materials), cross-referencing the standards covered and providing an estimated instructional time for each lesson, chapter and unit (i.e., pacing guide).
0/0

Indicator 3k

Materials contain strategies for informing parents or caregivers about the mathematics program and suggestions for how they can help support student progress and achievement.
0/0

Indicator 3l

Materials contain explanations of the instructional approaches of the program and identification of the research-based strategies.
0/0

Criterion 3m - 3q

Assessment: Materials offer teachers resources and tools to collect ongoing data about student progress on the Standards.
0/10

Indicator 3m

Materials provide strategies for gathering information about students' prior knowledge within and across grade levels.
0/2

Indicator 3n

Materials provide strategies for teachers to identify and address common student errors and misconceptions.
0/2

Indicator 3o

Materials provide opportunities for ongoing review and practice, with feedback, for students in learning both concepts and skills.
0/2

Indicator 3p

Materials offer ongoing formative and summative assessments:
0/0

Indicator 3p.i

Assessments clearly denote which standards are being emphasized.
0/2

Indicator 3p.ii

Assessments include aligned rubrics and scoring guidelines that provide sufficient guidance to teachers for interpreting student performance and suggestions for follow-up.
0/2

Indicator 3q

Materials encourage students to monitor their own progress.
0/0

Criterion 3r - 3y

Differentiated instruction: Materials support teachers in differentiating instruction for diverse learners within and across grades.
0/12

Indicator 3r

Materials provide strategies to help teachers sequence or scaffold lessons so that the content is accessible to all learners.
0/2

Indicator 3s

Materials provide teachers with strategies for meeting the needs of a range of learners.
0/2

Indicator 3t

Materials embed tasks with multiple entry-points that can be solved using a variety of solution strategies or representations.
0/2

Indicator 3u

Materials suggest support, accommodations, and modifications for English Language Learners and other special populations that will support their regular and active participation in learning mathematics (e.g., modifying vocabulary words within word problems).
0/2

Indicator 3v

Materials provide opportunities for advanced students to investigate mathematics content at greater depth.
0/2

Indicator 3w

Materials provide a balanced portrayal of various demographic and personal characteristics.
0/2

Indicator 3x

Materials provide opportunities for teachers to use a variety of grouping strategies.
0/0

Indicator 3y

Materials encourage teachers to draw upon home language and culture to facilitate learning.
0/0

Criterion 3aa - 3z

Effective technology use: Materials support effective use of technology to enhance student learning. Digital materials are accessible and available in multiple platforms.
0/0

Indicator 3aa

Digital materials (either included as supplementary to a textbook or as part of a digital curriculum) are web-based and compatible with multiple internet browsers (e.g., Internet Explorer, Firefox, Google Chrome, etc.). In addition, materials are "platform neutral" (i.e., are compatible with multiple operating systems such as Windows and Apple and are not proprietary to any single platform) and allow the use of tablets and mobile devices.
0/0

Indicator 3ab

Materials include opportunities to assess student mathematical understandings and knowledge of procedural skills using technology.
0/0

Indicator 3ac

Materials can be easily customized for individual learners. i. Digital materials include opportunities for teachers to personalize learning for all students, using adaptive or other technological innovations. ii. Materials can be easily customized for local use. For example, materials may provide a range of lessons to draw from on a topic.
0/0

Indicator 3ad

Materials include or reference technology that provides opportunities for teachers and/or students to collaborate with each other (e.g. websites, discussion groups, webinars, etc.).
0/0

Indicator 3z

Materials integrate technology such as interactive tools, virtual manipulatives/objects, and/or dynamic mathematics software in ways that engage students in the Mathematical Practices.
0/0

Additional Publication Details

Report Published Date: Fri Jan 22 00:00:00 UTC 2016

Report Edition: 2015

Title ISBN Edition Publisher Year
null 978-1-61445-024-5 null null null
null 978-1-61445-025-2 null null null
null 978-1-61445-026-9 null null null
null 978-1-61445-027-6 null null null
null 978-1-61445-028-3 null null null
null 978-1-61445-029-0 null null null
null 978-1-61445-030-6 null null null
null 978-1-61445-031-3 null null null
null 978-1-61445-032-0 null null null
null 978-1-61445-033-7 null null null
null 978-1-61445-070-2 null null null
null 978-1-61445-071-9 null null null
null 978-1-61445-072-6 null null null
null 978-1-61445-073-3 null null null
null 978-1-61445-074-0 null null null
null 978-1-61445-075-7 null null null
null 978-1-61445-076-4 null null null
null 978-1-61445-077-1 null null null
null 978-1-61445-283-6 null null null

About Publishers Responses

All publishers are invited to provide an orientation to the educator-led team that will be reviewing their materials. The review teams also can ask publishers clarifying questions about their programs throughout the review process.

Once a review is complete, publishers have the opportunity to post a 1,500-word response to the educator report and a 1,500-word document that includes any background information or research on the instructional materials.

Educator-Led Review Teams

Each report found on EdReports.org represents hundreds of hours of work by educator reviewers. Working in teams of 4-5, reviewers use educator-developed review tools, evidence guides, and key documents to thoroughly examine their sets of materials.

After receiving over 25 hours of training on the EdReports.org review tool and process, teams meet weekly over the course of several months to share evidence, come to consensus on scoring, and write the evidence that ultimately is shared on the website.

All team members look at every grade and indicator, ensuring that the entire team considers the program in full. The team lead and calibrator also meet in cross-team PLCs to ensure that the tool is being applied consistently among review teams. Final reports are the result of multiple educators analyzing every page, calibrating all findings, and reaching a unified conclusion.

Math K-8 Rubric and Evidence Guides

The K-8 review rubric identifies the criteria and indicators for high quality instructional materials. The rubric supports a sequential review process that reflect the importance of alignment to the standards then consider other high-quality attributes of curriculum as recommended by educators.

For math, our rubrics evaluate materials based on:

  • Focus and Coherence

  • Rigor and Mathematical Practices

  • Instructional Supports and Usability

The K-8 Evidence Guides complement the rubric by elaborating details for each indicator including the purpose of the indicator, information on how to collect evidence, guiding questions and discussion prompts, and scoring criteria.

X