Many schools think purchasing a published curriculum for mathematics is enough. You get a neat instructional package: scope, sequence, lessons, and assessments. The marketing claims you can open it up and just march straight through. But as EL observed in its 2017 internal study, a published curriculum in isolation is not enough. Why? 

The content is not as convenient as it seems.  It should require some personalization to your school. 

Logistically: 

• It does not / may not match the EL Education pedagogical standards

• It does not naturally match your school calendar 

• It does not align to your student population 

Theoretically: 

• It lacks the bigger vision and structural components that EL observed were so effective in its high achieving schools.  

• It lacks a Framework.  Its structures may not conform to your schools’ vision for mathematics instruction. It may lacks a cohesive language, or does not conform to the Language your school has agreed upon or that is best suited to your school culture and student body. 

• These components are addressed in Recommendation #3, but it’s worth keeping in mind that all the work described here to create the meat of a mathematics instructional plan should be hung on the Framework described in Recommendation 3 an not a core textbook plan at this time as there were none complete curriculums we (or the experts we interviewed) could recommend.

Instead of relying solely on a pre-packaged curriculum, the most effective schools did the following.  First, they committed to a vision for mathematics instruction that included a common Framework, Structures, and Language (Recommendation #3). Then the Math Culture Leads (Recommendation #2) supported the curricular mapping of math big ideas, skills, and assessments vertically and horizontally to an established their school-specific math curriculum.  This work includes the following: 

Choosing & Adapting Curriculum: 

• • Tools for Teaching: school selects curricular resources or tools to best support teacher planning. 

    • See EL Education research here on core curricular tools

    • See EL Education research here on supplemental curricular tools

Choosing Big Ideas:

• • Identify the list of big ideas to be taught.  This includes the core units of study most commonly mapped in a school’s STA (standards, targets, assessment map), unit maps, and/or curricular guides if the school follows a core curriculum. 

  • This is the most common tool completed, however, this list should be revisited vertically and horizontally keeping in mind the goals of each grade and the results of assessments of mastery of knowledge and skill (like State Assessments or Benchmarks). Even if a program (such as Eureka Math or CPM) provides a scope and sequence of topics and length of time, schools should ensure that their student needs are being met.

  • See an example of a wholistic map here 

Identify Skills:

• • Identify the student skills that should be increasing.  These include student skills that progress across grade levels that are central to a school’s mathematical vision. These skills include the Standards for Mathematical Practice from the Common Core, or skills of problem solving, creative critical thinking, reasoning, etc. 

  • These are rarely if ever mapped by a provided curriculum and are helpful to map across a school’s grade bands to ensure equity of math education and progress for all students in these all important capacities. See here for an example of one mapped skill (problem solving) see here. 

Plan Assessments

to be sequenced and mapped. Include the following categories: 

Benchmark Assessments or Interim Assessments 

• • Include assessments focused on end of year grade level standards (not growth) given 3 or more times a year to track progress 

  • And/or include those assessments focused on growth (i.e. NWEA MAP assessment) or others written to show progress on a trajectory of mathematical development 

  • Schools must be strategic in mapping which form of big picture assessment they use to check in on the progress of the school and of individual students. 

  • Data from the assessments should be looked at on both a macro level (whole school) and micro level (individual classroom/students) in order to adjust pacing and planning in response to students’ mastery

End of Year/Grade Level Assessment

• • Can be a part of the Benchmark or Interim cycle

  • Can be (often is) a state given assessment (such as the MCAS for Massachusetts, the ISAT for Idaho, or the PARCC for Illinois) 

  • Can also be a separate school-based assessment 

  • Used at the end of a grade level to show mastery of the topics,capacities of that grade band, and readiness for the next level. 

  • Can be used across grade levels of teachers to discuss students entering the next grade level and prepare for adjustments to pacing, planning, and intervention and extensions needed for the incoming group. 

End of Unit Assessments & Other Formative Assessments
(Exit Tickets, Observational Data, etc)

• • Most commonly provided in curricular resources 

  • Should be mapped in school wide STA’s and unit plans

  • As part of standards based grading, students should have at least three assessment points for each mapped learning target in order to support students’ reflection and ownership over their learning. 

  • Key Point: By mapping, sequencing, and owning the editing/creation of these assessments, teachers are more inclined to purposefully use the data as a useful road map to help adjust the pacing of topics and capacities as students show mastery and struggle.

• Begin by asking:

  • What is already in place that is successful? 

    • Curriculum Maps from a provided curriculum? 

    • End of Unit Assessments? 

    • Benchmark Assessment Tools? 

    • STA’s? 

  • What is a non-negotiable for our school based on state requirements or adherence to our vision? 

    • State assessments? 

    • Reporting requirements? 

    • Evidence of Mastery of Knowledge and Skill Work for Credentialing? 

    • Core capacity tracking? 

• We suggest that Math Culture Leads (possibly with teachers) create a master sequencing document which includes: big ideas (units of study with # of weeks/days allocated), skills (problem solving, discourse goals, etc), and assessments. 

  • See an example of a wholistic map here 

    • Unit Plans

    • STAs 

  • See an example of a big ideas map for grades 3 - 12 from Problem Based Learning 

• Create a list and a map of school wide assessments that will drive instruction

Choose 1 - 2 skills to map within curriculum across grade levels. Build out across one year (vertically) and then scope horizontally. Work in a collaborative team to test ideas and assessment tactics. Note - often skills are those which should be benchmark assessed to support vertical alignment. There are tools that exist in some EL Education schools that can be shared reach out to lgrein@eduquatellc.com for more information if you or a partner school is interested in discussing the fit for your school.