1. SLLIS Curriculum Review Committee Report
Math
Program Recommendations
Taylor

2. Committee Members
Spanish Program--Ana Lopez (5th); Raul Munoz Rodrigo (5th)
Chinese Program--Tzu-Shan Huang (1st); Nannan Huang (4th)
French Program--Kari Rivers (Kg); Yves Conseant (2nd); Sabrina Poirier (5th)
International Program--Celine Dissel (6-8)
Student Support Services--Renee Martin (Title l Literacy); Taylor Mitchell (SpEd); Christa Braun (ELL/ELA)
Facilitator--Thurma DeLoach
Taylor

3. Charge to the Committee
By the end of June, SLLIS Curriculum Review Committee will recommend to the SLLIS Board of Education a Math instructional program that:
Aligns with our SLLIS mission
Aligns with the MO Learning Standards and Grade Level Expectations
Is supported by empirical research as appropriate and effective in developing math problem-solving skills and conceptual knowledge in all SLLIS learners

4. Our Process: Key Steps
Analyze characteristics of evidence-based math instructional programs
Research high performing schools/districts
Select 3-5 evidence-based programs for potential implementation & a deeper dive in our review
Select core math instructional program to recommend purchase, training, and implementation for school year
Taylor
Before we began we outlined our process:
First we would review SLLIS’ current academic performance, interpret our mission statement, and dissect MO Learning Standards and Grade Level Expectations
Then, we would research what components were essential to literacy instruction and student achievement in reading and writing
Next we would research high performing schools and districts in the area to see what core programs were being implemented. We also wanted to review the curriculum maps published by these districts to see if we could adopt one and revise to meet SLLIS’ mission
After identifying these programs we wanted to select 3-5 of the most promising for further review. We wanted to make connections with and get feedback from the schools who were using these programs every day. We also wanted to conduct site visits to observe the programs being used in the classroom
Finally we planned to create a standardized program evaluation rubric based on a staff survey of SLLIS’ needs.
After going through this process, we believed that we would be confident in our ability to select a core English Literacy program to recommend for purchase, training, and implementation for the AY.

5. Evidence-based math instructional programs include:
Big 5 Instructional Content
Number and Operations
Algebra
Geometry
Measurement
Data Analysis and Probability

6. Big 5 Math processes Problem solving Reasoning and Proof Communication
Connections
Representations

7. Started with 10 programs and narrowed down to 4
Ready Math
Math In Focus
Go Math
Eureka Math
Investigations
Every Day Math
Bridges in Mathematics
Envision Math
Primary Math
Saxon Math

8. 2 Finalists: Ready Math and Eureka Math
Both scored equally on EdReports review—highest ratings possible
Both received excellent recommendations from reference schools/districts
Both provide academic rigor, evidence-based instructional practices, strong alignment with MO Learning Standards
Both emphasize a conceptual, problem-solving discourse teaching framework
Both provide clear vertical alignment between grade levels
Both companies provide high quality professional development and numerous on-line learning resources for teachers

9. End of the School year and summer happened
Presentations for Ready Math and Eureka Math were in June
Only 3 committee members were able to participate
No “face to face” full CRC discussion on the positives and negatives between these 2 finalists
CRC has not reached consensus on which of these two programs to adopt
Ready Math—5 out of 11 members preferred
Eureka Math—3 out of 11 members preferred
No preference stated—3 out of 11 members

10. Now what? Waiting until later in the summer isn’t a viable option
Purchasing and training needs to happen in July and early August
Starting either program without high-quality PD at the start is not recommended
Without committee consensus---Final program recommendation defaults to the administrative team
Consider using as a “pilot implementation year”
Full implementation of training plan—including on-site embedded instructional coaching
Strong administrative over-sight of implementation fidelity

11. Questions and Comments