Math Program Recommendations

Data tell us that we should consider these recommendations, but they also require us to learn more and engage with stakeholders further before making decisions. The recommendations also include a short description of what each means for students, as well as the decision-making framework, roles of stakeholders, and estimated timeline.

Completed

Adoption of common kindergarten to fifth grade math curriculum resource
Share a consistent schoolwide philosophy of teaching and learning

Adoption of common kindergarten to fifth grade math curriculum resource

Students will have access to consistent, purpose-built math resources designed by experts in math education.

We decided we need a common, consistent curriculum resource for elementary school. We still need to investigate which is the best curriculum resource for our community. A team of Elementary school educators will work with the office of learning to determine selection criteria as well as process for selection. The goal is to implement these common elementary school curriculum resources beginning in the 2022-23 school year.

Start Date: September 2021
Decision Date: February 2022

Action Steps

Research possible curriculum resources.
Develop criteria for selection.
Pilot curriculum resources in select classrooms.
Solicit feedback from pilot to inform decision.
Provide training and professional development to ES faculty.

Share a consistent schoolwide philosophy of teaching and learning

Students will experience a clear, consistent and engaging math journey at SAS

We need to clearly articulate a philosophy and learning principles from kindergarten through twelfth grade that will in turn drive meaningful learning for all students, and a collective commitment to high quality math learning.

Start Date: May 2021
End Date: December 2021

Action Steps

Review research and literature on high quality math instruction.
Draft learning principle statements.
Receive feedback from SAS Math faculty.

Ongoing

Revise courses to ensure curriculum and assessment are focuses on breadth rather than depth (2021-2023)

Students will understand math skills more deeply and be able to use the skills to engage in meaningful, real-world work.

We need to refine our curriculum to ensure it’s viability as well as to ensure students engage in deeper learning experiences that require them to apply their learning in new and novel contexts. We will look to have the curriculum go deeper into essential areas and reduce the breadth of the curriculum in non-essential areas. We also need to review course learning outcomes in terms of vertical alignment so that we target the most essential learning in math.

Start Date: August 2021
End Date: April 2022

Action Steps

Curriculum Team meetings to refine essential learning outcomes using research-based criterion.
Refine assessments to promote deeper learning and alignment of essential learning outcomes.
Document Math curriculum in common digital tool.

Examine pathway options in middle school (2021-2023)

All middle school students will have opportunities to access higher-level math resources that allow them opportunities to be challenged and engaged at their level.

We’ve determined that we need to examine the course offerings in middle school. A team of middle school educators will be formed to design a process for review that will seek input from a variety of stakeholders. Our hope is to revise the middle school course sequence that provides increased opportunities for higher level math for more/all students.

Start Date: August 2022
Decision Date: January 2023

Action Steps

Collect data over time (focus group, surveys etc) to inform decision making.
Research structures and offerings at other international schools.
Develop options for feedback.
Solicit feedback on pathway options from stakeholders to inform decision.

Investigate schedules and programs (2021-2024)

Students are given clear opportunities and flexible instruction to meet their needs during the school day.

We’ve determined that we need to consider different options and creative solutions for scheduling that allow students more time in which they can more readily access intervention and extension opportunities. Division teams of faculty and leaders will be formed to seek input from a variety of stakeholders. Our outcome will be revised divisional schedules.

Start Date: September 2021
Decision Date: May 2022

Action Steps

Examine intervention/extension schedules at other international schools.
Create new schedule options by division.
Seek feedback from community stakeholders to inform decision.
Implement new schedule.

All the professional learning goals - high impact, classroom intervention, extension (2021-2023)

Students will experience inquiry-based, student-centered mathematics instruction tailored to their needs.

We will provide more feedback and coaching to teachers about high-quality math instructional practices that focus on student inquiry and collaborative learning. We want to promote more student-centered teaching that engages and challenges all students in the class.

State Date: August 2021
End Date: May 2023

Action Steps

Provide more frequent opportunities for observation and feedback for teachers on their classroom practices.
Provide greater training and other professional development opportunities on research-based pedagogical strategies.
Engage in team collaborative learning activities on high quality math instruction.

Coming Up

Detracking high school teachers (2023-2024)

Students will have teachers from a range of backgrounds and experiences across all math courses.

We’ve determined that we need to investigate staffing of courses and consider changes in the future. A team of high school educators will be formed to seek input from a variety of stakeholders. Our outcome will be a clear staffing policy for math courses in the high school.

Start Date: January 2023
Decision Date: May 2023

Action Steps

Assess current staffing of HS math for workload and course distribution.
Develop draft guidelines for feedback.
Solicit feedback from faculty.
Implementation staffing changes (if any).

High School pathways (2022-2024)

All high school students will have access to a math class matched to their needs and interests.

We've determined that we need to review our math course offerings in the high school to provide options to all levels of math learners. A team of educators will be formed to design a process to seek input from a variety of stakeholders. Our hope is that we have a revised course pathway with increased options for all students.

Start Date: August 2022
Decision Date: December 2022

Action Steps

Collect data on offering needs and opportunities from a variety of stakeholders.
Develop new course pathways.
Solicit feedback on new course pathways and course offerings.
Develop new course offerings.

Review acceleration options in high school (2022-2023)

Student options for acceleration in math will be reviewed and revised to ensure there are opportunities for students to progress at the appropriate speed.

We’ve determined we need to examine our process and procedures for allowing acceleration in math courses, such as placement tests and summer semester. A team of high school leaders will be formed to seek input from a variety of stakeholders. The results of this process will clarify accelerations in the future.

Start Date: January 2022
Decision Date: April 2022

Action Steps

Collect data from parents, faculty, and students on current acceleration offerings.
Investigate policies at other international schools.
Draft policies for feedback from stakeholders.
Implement changes (if any).

Parent Engagement Sessions

Parent Coffee on Monday, May 10, 2021

Past Sessions

Process

A core team of faculty representatives, including teachers and leaders in all divisions, was formed to inquire into the current and future state of our kindergarten through twelfth grade math curriculum and program. The team used a gap analysis method and framed their inquiry through the following questions:

What did we do?
What areas did we investigate?

What did we do?

A core team of faculty representatives, including teachers and administrators, of all divisions was formed to inquire into the current and future state of our kindergarten to twelfth grade math curriculum and program. The team had 5 half day and 1 full day meetings to implement the process between Oct 2020 and Feb 2021. The team examined achievement data such as AP and MAP scores to look for areas of celebration and growth measured through external data. Through focus groups from a variety of stakeholders (alumni, parents, current students, counselors, faculty) learning walks to examine instruction, curriculum audits, surveys, and research/ literature, the team was able to collect and analyze comprehensive perception data. You can find the comprehensive list of data collection methods below. The team used a gap analysis method and framed their inquiry through the following questions:

What areas did we investigate?

The review resulted in a comprehensive amount of data that reflected voice from all stakeholders in our community. The Math Review Team analyzed and themed the data into the following areas.

Outcomes and Achievement

We define outcomes as learning we want for students including both our Learning Aspirations/ DSLOs as well as mathematical practices (eg. sense-making, application, and problem-solving). We defined achievement as our performance on external examinations and tests.

Curriculum and Resources

We define curriculum and resources as courses, pathways and concurrent resources needed to be implemented effectively.

Instruction

Instruction is defined as our classroom teaching practices including how we provide effective initial instruction to all students, and how we provide targeted instruction activities to select students to close gaps and extend thinking.

Assessment

We define assessment as the act of collecting information about individuals or groups of individuals in order to better understand them. These assessments are intended to be aligned to our curriculum standards as well as our Learning Aspirations/ DSLOs. These assessments occur both externally and internally. These assessments are done formatively to provide students with insight to improve achievement and help teachers diagnose and respond to student needs, as well as summatively to to determine what learning occurred. It is an ongoing process aimed at improving student learning.

Equity and Access

The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics states:
“Creating, supporting, and sustaining a culture of access and equity require being responsive to students’ backgrounds, experiences, cultural perspectives, traditions, and knowledge when designing and implementing a mathematics program and assessing its effectiveness. Acknowledging and addressing factors that contribute to differential outcomes among groups of students are critical to ensuring that all students routinely have opportunities to experience high quality mathematics instruction, learn challenging mathematics content, and receive the support necessary to be successful. Addressing equity and access includes both ensuring that all students attain mathematics proficiency and increasing the numbers of students from all racial, ethnic, linguistic, gender, and socioeconomic groups who attain the highest levels of mathematics achievement” (NCTM, 2014).

Student Wellness

We define student wellness as the extent to which students feel safe, supported, and healthy. Student wellness is a major concern for all stakeholders.

Parent Engagement

We define parent engagement as our ability to build partnership with parents in supporting our students.

Below are key themes synthesized from the data collection above as areas of strength and growth. The italicized phrases are used to identify and align areas of growth to specific recommendations for improvement

Overall Strengths

Overall Areas for Growth

Strong commitment from all stakeholders to excellence in mathematics
Overall strong performance in student achievement data
Collaborative and dedicated faculty committed to student learning
High access to curriculum resources and professional learning
Evidence of rigor and challenge for students

Vertical alignment and quality control of curriculum, assessment and instructional practices to Mission and Vision (Alignment)
Consistent high quality teaching (Instruction)
Interventions in the classroom and with learning support teachers (Intervention and Extension)
Extension or learning in and outside the classroom (Extension)
Clarity and Equity of Access to Courses and Curriculum (Equity and Access)
Student Support and Wellness (Wellness)
Parent Engagement and Support (Parent Engagement)

TEAM MEMBERS

14 FACULTY REPRESENTATIVES (TEACHERS AND SCHOOL LEADERS)

14 FACULTY REPRESENTATIVES (TEACHERS AND SCHOOL LEADERS)

Gynelle Gaskell
**Elementary School**
*Facilitator*

Sudesh Pathmarajah
**Elementary School**

Andrew Miller
**Office of Learning**
*Facilitator*

What is the literature and research telling us about effective Math Education?

The purpose of this section is to present a synthesis of current literature and research on mathematics education. It is intended to be a research-based, aspirational list of high-quality indicators of mathematics education.

What do schools with strong mathematics education have?

What do schools with strong mathematics education have?

Curriculum aligned to clear essential learning outcomes that support depth rather than breadth of learning (Achieve the Core, n.d.; National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, 2010).
Teaching and learning that allow students to experience wonder, joy, and beauty (Boaler, 2008; NCTM, 2020).
Teaching and learning that allow for professional opportunities beyond school (NCTM, 2020).
Teaching and learning that promote understanding, analysis, and critique of meaningful contexts (Boaler, 2015; Gutstein, 2003; Suh, J. et al., 2021).
Pathways that provide equity and access to courses, rather than courses that are qualitatively different or “dead-ends” (Association of State Supervisors of Mathematics, 2020; Burdman, 2018; NCTM, 2020).
Instructors with a variety of experience teaching different levels and courses of math (NCTM, 2020).
Instruction and assessment that transfers the cognitive load to students, where students learn, practice, and engage in application (Allen, 2011; National Research Council, 1993).
Instruction that promotes student voice and multiple methods of problem solving to build development of student mathematical identity (Burdman, 2018) and allow them to see themselves as creators of math (Allen, 2011; NCTM, 2020; Suh, J. et al., 2021).
Inquiry-based learning that supports curiosity, collaboration, communication, critical thinking, and creativity (Rakes, 2017; Seely, 2017).
Instruction that facilitates collaborative mathematical discourse and talk, including posing purposeful questions to support student thinking (NCTM, 2014).
Instruction that builds and reinforces procedural fluency and conceptual understanding and application (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010).
Instruction that uses and connects mathematical representations (NCTM, 2014).
Instruction and assessment that emphasize meaning and sense-making, which should involve open-ended challenges that promote productive struggle (Edutopia, 2017; Seely, 2017).
Assessment practices that elicit visible student thinking as well as timely and targeted feedback.
Strong systems of support both inside classrooms and through school programs for students who are below standards.
Instructional practices that promote students’ abilities to articulate what they are doing, why it is important, and how it will transfer to their future lives (English & Gainsburg, 2015).

Findings

Overall Strengths

Overall Areas for Growth

Strong commitment from all stakeholders to excellence in mathematics
Overall strong performance in student achievement data
Collaborative and dedicated faculty committed to student learning
High access to curriculum resources and professional learning
Evidence of rigor and challenge for students

Vertical alignment and quality control of curriculum, assessment, and instructional practices to Mission and Vision
Consistent, high-quality teaching practices
Interventions in the classroom and with learning support teachers
Extension of learning in and outside the classroom
Clarity and equity of access to courses and curriculum
Student academic support and wellness
Parent engagement and support

Glossary
References

Glossary

AP - Advanced Placement, rigorous college-level courses and exams offered at SAS

Learning Aspirations/ DSLO - Learning Aspirations (formerly known as Desired Student Learning Outcomes) which include Collaboration, Communication, Critical Thinking, Creativity, and Cultural Competence

Embedded Performance Assessments/ EPA - A series of assessment tasks (both formative and summative) that make up a unit that leads learners towards the successful demonstration of knowledge and skills.

MAP - Measurement of Academic Progress (standardized test given once a year).

Math Practices - The Standards for Mathematical Practice describe varieties of expertise that mathematics educators at all levels should seek to develop in their students. These practices rest on important “processes and proficiencies” with longstanding importance in mathematics education.

Pathway - a course progression for a student

Performance Tasks - Individual tasks within the Embedded Performance Assessment arc. The majority of tasks are formative in nature and provide instructional pauses during which teachers and students participate in giving and receiving feedback.

PLC/ Professional Learning Communities - Collaborative teacher teams that focus on student learning by improving instructional practices.

Power Standards - The learning standards that have been determined by school level administrators and/or teachers to be the highest priority for students to learn.

Tier 1 - High impact initial instruction that all students receive.

Tier 2 - Targeted classroom instruction to address gaps in learning

Tier 3 - intensive, individualized support to improve their behavioral and academic outcomes that may occur outside of the classroom.

Tracking - a qualitatively different mathematics course. In some cases, puts students into an inflexible course pathway or puts students into terminal mathematics course pathways that do not prepare them for continued study of fundamental mathematics education. Learning opportunities provided to different levels, or tracks, can be substantially different.

References

Achieve the Core. (n.d.) College- and career-ready shifts in mathematics. https://achievethecore.org/page/900/college-and-career-ready-shifts-in-mathematics.
Allen, K. (2011). Democracy & Education. Democracy and Education, 19(2). 1-7. https://democracyeducationjournal.org/home/vol19/iss2/4/
Association of State Supervisors of Mathematics. (2020). Detracking school mathematics to ensure equitable and empowering programs and opportunities: A position statement from the Association of State Supervisors of Mathematics.
Boaler, Jo. (2008) What’s math got to do with it? How parents and teachers can help children learn to love their least favorite subject. Penguin.
Boaler, Jo. (2015). Mathematical mindsets: Unleashing students’ potential through creative math, inspiring messages and innovative teaching. Wiley.
Broussard, C. A., & Joseph, A. L. (1998). Tracking: A Form of Educational Neglect? Children & Schools, 20(2), 110–120. https://doi.org/10.1093/cs/20.2.110
Burdman, P. (2018). The mathematics of opportunity: Rethinking the role of math in educational equity. Just Equations: A project of the Opportunity Institute. https://justequations.org/resource/the-mathematics-of-opportunity-report/
Calarco, J.; Horn, U.; Chen, G. (n.d.). “You Need to Be More Responsible”: How Math Homework Operates as a Status-Reinforcing Process in School. 1–44.
Condron, D. J. (2011). Egalitarianism and educational excellence: Compatible goals for affluent societies? Educational Researcher, 40(2), 47–55. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X11401021
Delbert, C. (2020, October 2). Do students need calculus anymore? Popular Mechanics. https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/math/a34196922/do-students-need-calculus-anymore/
Domina, T., & Saldana, J. (2012). Does Raising the Bar Level the Playing Field?: Mathematics Curricular Intensification and Inequality in American High Schools, 1982-2004. American Educational Research Journal, 49(4), 685–708. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831211426347
English, L. D., & Gainsburg, J. (2015). Problem solving in a 21st-century mathematics curriculum. In Handbook of International Research in Mathematics Education: Third Edition (pp. 313–335). https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203448946
Gutierrez, R. (2002) Enabling the practice of mathematics teachers in context: Towards a new equity research agenda, Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 4(2–3), 145–187. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327833mtl04023_4.
Gutstein, E. (2003). Teaching and learning mathematics for Social Justice in an urban, Latino school. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 34(1), 37-73. DOI:10.2307/30034699
Gutstein, E. (2006). Reading and writing the world with mathematics: Toward a pedagogy for social justice (pp. 1–14). Taylor & Francis.
Hannula, M. S. (2019). Young learners’ mathematics-related affect: A commentary on concepts, methods, and developmental trends. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 100(3), 309–316. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-018-9865-9
Heritage, M., & Wylie, C. (2018). Reaping the benefits of assessment for learning: achievement, identity, and equity. ZDM - Mathematics Education, 50(4), 729–741. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-018-0943-3
House, J. D. (2006). Mathematics beliefs and achievement of elementary school students in Japan and the United States: Results from the Third International Mathematics and Science Study. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 167(1), 31–45. https://doi.org/10.3200/GNTP.167.1.31-45
Kane, Dylan (2020, October 6). How to help students see themselves as mathematicians. Edutopia. https://www.edutopia.org/article/how-help-students-see-themselves-mathematicians
Karademir, A., & Akman, B. (2019). Effect of Inquiry-Based Mathematics Activities on Preschoolers’ Math Skills. International Journal of Progressive Education, 15(5), 198–215. https://doi.org/10.29329/ijpe.2019.212.14
Ker, H. W. (2016). The impacts of student-, teacher- and school-level factors on mathematics achievement: an exploratory comparative investigation of Singaporean students and the USA students. Educational Psychology, 36(2), 254–276. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2015.1026801
Martínez-Sierra, G., & García-González, M. del S. (2017). Students’ Emotions in the High School Mathematical Class: Appraisals in Terms of a Structure of Goals. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15(2), 349–369. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-015-9698-2
Mazzocco, M. M. M., Feigenson, L., & Halberda, J. (2011). Preschoolers’ precision of the approximate number system predicts later school mathematics performance. PLoS ONE, 6(9), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0023749
Mun, R. U., & Hertzog, N. B. (2018). Teaching and Learning in STEM Enrichment Spaces: From Doing Math to Thinking Mathematically. Roeper Review, 40(2), 121–129. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2018.1434713
National Council of Supervisors of Mathematics. (2017). Closing the Opportunity Gap: A Call for Detracking Mathematics A position statement from NCSM: Leadership in Mathematics Education Tracking: Policies and Practices Widening the Opportunity Gap. www.nctm.org
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2020a). Catalyzing change in early childhood and elementary mathematics: Initiating critical conversations. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2020b). Catalyzing change in middle school mathematics: Initiating critical conversations. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2020c). Catalyzing change in high school mathematics: Initiating critical conversations. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2014). Principles to action: Ensuring mathematical success for all. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards Math. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers, Washington D.C.
National Research Council. (1993). Measuring what counts: A conceptual guide for mathematics assessment. Washington, DC. https://doi.org/10.17226/2235
O’Shea, H. (2009). The Ideal Mathematics Class for Grades 5 and 6: What Do the Students Think? In Australian Primary Mathematics Classroom (Vol. 14, Issue 2, pp. 18–23).
Performance-based assessment in math. (2015, June 23). Edutopia. Retrieved August 27, 2020, from https://www.edutopia.org/practice/performance-based-assessment-making-math-relevant
Rakes, C. (2017, June 21). Challenging the status quo in mathematics: Teaching for understanding. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/challenging-the-status-quo-in-mathematics-teaching-for-understanding-78660
Seely C. L. (2017). Turning Teaching Upside Down. Educational Leadership, 75(2), 32-26.
Suh, J., Matson, K., Seshaiyer, P., Jamieson, S., & Tate, H. (2021). Mathematical modeling as a catalyst for equitable mathematics instruction: Preparing teachers and young learners with 21st century skills. Mathematics, 9(162), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.3390/math9020162
Turner, J. C., Meyer, D. K., Midgley, C., & Patrick, H. (2003). Teacher Discourse and Sixth Graders’ Reported Affect and Achievement Behaviors in Two High-Mastery/High-Performance Mathematics Classrooms. Elementary School Journal, 103(4). https://doi.org/10.1086/499731
Vasagar, J. (2016, July 22). Why Singapore’s kids are so good at maths. Financial Times. https://www.ft.com/content/2e4c61f2-4ec8-11e6-8172-e39ecd3b86fc
Wolfmeyer, M. (2017). EcoJustice Mathematics Education : 32(2), 53–71.

Click here for the full report