documentsn.com

I.IntroductionThe importance of the K-12 public school system to deliver graduates with a strongmathematical background is clear. Employers need a workforce that possesses highlevel math skills in order to compete in the global economy. All states in the nation arefaced with the challenge to produce mathematically proficient graduates. To accessdesirable job opportunities, students today require mathematics education that goes farbeyond what was needed by students in the past. Student performance on stateassessments, such as the Washington Assessment of Student Learning (WASL) hasshown little to no gain in several grade levels over the past three years. Approximately50 percent of sophomores in 2008 passed the mathematics portion of the WASL. In2006, 45 percent of Washington State high school graduates attending two-yearcolleges needed remediation in mathematics. There is still work to be done in order toincrease student achievement and learning in mathematics.With the passage and funding of Legislation during the 2007 session (SecondSubstitute House Bill 1906), the state of Washington began a new phase in its journeyto strengthen mathematics and science education for the 2007-09 biennium. The 2008Legislative Session provided further emphasis on this work as part of Second SubstituteHouse Bill 2598 and Senate Bill 6534.Pursuant to SSHB 1906 (2007 session) and Senate Bill 6534 (2008 session), OSPI wasdirected to revise the 2006 mathematics standards based on recommendations from theState Board of Education (SBE). Revision of the K-12 mathematics standards began inOctober 2007. Hundreds of state and national mathematics educators and expertsprovided input and insight on the revised standards throughout the process. The final K8 standards were approved by the SBE and adopted by the Office of Superintendent ofPublic Instruction (OSPI) in April 2008, and the 9-12 revised standards were adopted inJuly 2008. The final adopted standards provide greater clarity about what is expected ofstudents in each grade, more explicit guidance to educators about what to teach andwhen, and increase the rigor of mathematical content to ensure more Washingtonstudents succeed.A common training process and materials was developed and delivered across thestate. This training provided strong support to school districts and teachers throughoutthe state for building understanding of and delivering instruction based on the revisedstandards. Mathematics coordinators (funded by the 2007 Legislature) for each of thenine regional Educational Service Districts (ESDs), in close coordination with OSPI,trained over 300 K-12 mathematics professional development facilitators. Since June2008, these facilitators have delivered training to over 17,000 mathematics educatorsthroughout the state.Following revision of the state’s K-12 mathematics standards in spring and summer2008, the Legislature directed OSPI to recommend “ no more than three basicmathematics curricula each for elementary, middle and high school grade spans.”4

(RCW 28A.305.215, (7)(a). An instructional materials review process was implementedfor core/comprehensive mathematics materials (Grades K–8 in June 2008 and Grades9–12 in November 2008) in order to determine the recommendations. The programsthat were reviewed were voluntarily submitted by publishers. Complete results of eachreview, including the OSPI recommendations, will be presented in detailed reportsanalyzing the degree of alignment each program reviewed has to the revisedmathematics standards. OSPI is currently in the process of finalizing therecommendations for elementary and middle school grade spans as a result of thereview and comment from the SBE. Final recommendations for Grades K–8 arescheduled to be made in December 2008. The report and recommendations for the highschool recommendations will be presented to the SBE in January 2009 and will likely befinalized in spring 2009. No one curricula will likely align fully to the revised standards;therefore, OSPI will be reviewing K–12 supplemental mathematics materials as aresource for districts in addressing the apparent deficiencies in core curricula.In order to provide the most efficient and targeted support to school districts, it isnecessary to obtain a clear picture of the mathematics curricula used and the adoptioncycles of districts. The 2008 Legislature recognized this as an important piece of thepuzzle for improving mathematics education by passing Second Substitute House Bill2598 that requires OSPI to conduct a comprehensive survey of the mathematicscurricula being used by school districts at all grade levels and the textbook andcurriculum purchasing cycle of the districts.II.ProcessOSPI collaborated with the nine regional ESDs to administer two statewide surveyscollecting the necessary data from school districts regarding the curricula materialsused and their adoption/purchasing cycles.The surveys were:1. Mathematics Curricula Usage Survey: The first process was to determinecurricula usage for mathematics in the state at the elementary, middle, and highschool levels. The ESD mathematics coordinators committed to collectingaccurate information regarding the curriculum used at the elementary, middle,and high school levels. As a starting point, OSPI shared general curricula usagedata collected between fall 2007 and spring 2008 with the ESDs. Each ESDmathematics coordinator contacted district curriculum leaders in their region toverify curriculum usage information. Data was collected, aggregated, andreported in the fall of 2008 to OSPI.2. School District Adoption/Purchasing Cycles: The second portion of theprocess was to collect data on the adoption and/or purchasing cycle of districts.A statewide survey was issued that requested school districts to provideinformation regarding their adoption processes and purchasing cycles at theelementary, middle, and high school levels. The window for completion of thissurvey was October 10–31, 2008. One week prior to the close of the purchasing5

cycle survey, OSPI provided information regarding which districts had completedthe survey to ESD mathematics coordinators who followed up with phone calls toany districts that did not complete the survey. We anticipated that many districtsmay not have a standard curricula “adoption” process, so for the purpose of thissurvey, adoption and purchase were used interchangeably.The results of both surveys were collected and analyzed in order to provide an accuratepicture of the landscape of the mathematics curriculum usage and adoption in use inWashington State.III.FindingsAppendix A provides a comprehensive table of the following data from those districtsthat contributed to our data collection efforts:9 Core mathematics curricula currently in use.9 Elementary, middle, and/or high school adoption cycles.9 Elementary, middle, and/or high school year of next adoption/purchase.Mathematics Curricula Usage SurveyData was collected from school districts on the mathematics curricula that are currentlyused (as of September/October 2008) throughout the state at the elementary, middle,and high school levels. Data on curricula usage was collected from the majority ofdistricts. Ninety-nine percent (or 293 of 295 districts) reported, representing 99.9percent of the statewide student population. However, not all districts reportedelementary, middle, and high school curricula usage.It should be noted that due to the multiple versions of curricula materials in use and dueto the fact that during the data collection process many of the respondents wereunaware of the version (copyright year) of the materials used, only the names ofprograms, without copyright years, are included in this report.The following three tables provide a statewide snapshot of the elementary, middle, andhigh school mathematics curricula used in the state. A complete listing of the specificcurricula used by the reporting districts can be found in Appendix A.Elementary School (Grades K–5): Table 1 represents the mathematics curriculacurrently used in the 290 districts that responded to the survey. This represents 98percent of the 295 districts statewide and 99.9 percent of the statewide studentpopulation. Most frequent curricula used: Of the 290 districts that reported, the twoprograms that are used with the majority (65.49%) of the state’s studentpopulation are Everyday Mathematics (75 districts serving 33.61% of the state’sstudent population) and Investigations (68 districts serving 31.88% of the state’sstudent population).6

Table 1. ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MATH CURRICULA USAGEElementary School MathCurriculaPercentage ofState’s StudentPopulationRepresentedNumber of DistrictsUsing Curricula(out of %0.13%0.12% 0.10% 0.10% 0.10% 0.10% 0.10% 0.10%75681718266121511126122151611311211 0.10%1 0.10% 0.10%99.91%12290Everyday MathematicsInvestigationsGrowing with MathematicsMath TrailblazersBridges in MathematicsMath ExpressionsMath CentralScott Foresman - Addison WesleyMathLandNumber CornerSaxonSRA MathExplorations in MathMath ConnectsMath in My WorldKathy RichardsonHarcourt MathExcell MathConnected Math Project (CMP)Math Their WayA Anytime MathSilver BurdettMathematics ApplicationMath AdvantageMath ConnectionsTransitions MathHolt MathematicsModern Curriculum Press (MCP)MathPath to Math SuccessVarious TextsTotal7

Middle School (Grades 6–8): Table 2 represents the mathematics curricula currentlyused in the 267 districts that reported. This represents 90.5 percent of the 295 districtsstatewide and 92.5 percent of the statewide student population. Most frequent curricula used: Of the 267 districts that reported, the curriculaused with the majority of the state’s student population (64.31%) is ConnectedMath Project (CMP). Of the districts reporting, 160 currently use CMP.Table 2. MIDDLE SCHOOL MATH CURRICULA USAGEMiddle School Math CurriculaPercentage ofState’s StudentPopulationRepresentedNumber ofDistricts UsingCurricula(out of 13% 0.10% 0.10% 0.10%0.10%92.49%22111111267Connected Math Project (CMP)Math ThematicsCollege Preparatory Math (CPM)MathscapePassports to MathematicsGlencoeSaxonMcDougal LittellPrentice HallHoltScott Foresman-Addison WesleyUniversity of Chicago SchoolMathematics Project (UCSMP)InvestigationsMath FactsMath in ContextMath AdvantageExplorationEveryday LearningCore PlusVarious TextsTotal8

High School (Grades 9–12): Of the 295 districts statewide, 246 of them have at leastone high school. Of the 246 districts providing high school, 189 (approximately 77%)reported curricula usage at the high school level. Approximately 50 percent of districts that reported serve their students usingtraditional curricula materials (Algebra I and Geometry). One hundred twenty-fivedistricts reported using Algebra I curricula; while 120 districts reported usingGeometry curricula. Approximately 55 percent of the state’s student population isrepresented in this data. Table 3 and Table 4 represent the specific Algebra I andGeometry curricula used in these districts. Sixty-four districts reported using integrated curricula for high schoolmathematics instruction (Mathematics I and II). These districts representapproximately 36 percent of the state’s student population. Table 5 representsthe specific Mathematics I and II curricula used in these districts.Note: Curricula usage data was not collected for the materials used by districts to teachAlgebra 2 or Mathematics (Integrated) III.9

Table 3. ALGEBRA I COURSE CURRICULA USAGEAlgebra I Course CurriculaPercentage of State’sStudent PopulationRepresentedNumber of DistrictsUsing Curricula(out of 0% 0.10% 0.10% 0.10% 0.10%55.6%21111111125McDougal/Littell (Traditional)College Preparatory Math (CPM)Glencoe (Traditional)Prentice Hall (Traditional)Discovering AlgebraCognitive TutorHoltSaxonUniversity of Chicago SchoolMathematics Project (UCSMP)Addison Wesley Focus on AlgebraPrentice Hall AlgebraCenter for Occupational Research andDevelopment (CORD)Algebra StructureAlgebra 1 - SouthwesternDistrict-created math academyKey Math (AGS Publishing)McGraw HillALEKSApplied Math - Scott ForesmanTotal10

Table 4. GEOMETRY COURSE CURRICULA USAGEGeometry Course CurriculaCollege Preparatory Mathematics(CPM)Glencoe (Traditional)Discovering GeometryHoltMcDougal/Littell (Traditional)Prentice Hall (Traditional)University of Chicago SchoolMathematics Project (UCSMP)Cognitive TutorSaxonAddison Wesley Focus on GeometryCenter for Occupational Researchand Development (CORD)Scott Foresman and Co.Merrill and GlencoeALEKSApplied Math - Scott ForesmanTotal11Percentage ofState’sStudentPopulationRepresentedNumber ofDistricts UsingCurricula(out of %1.13%0.77%0.67%741230.50%0.23%0.13% 0.10% 0.10%54.8%21111120

Table 5. MATHEMATICS I AND II COURSE CURRICULA USAGEPercentage ofState’sStudentPopulationRepresentedNumber ofDistrictsUsingCurricula(out of 64)Core Plus16.64%34McDougall/Littell (Integrated)9.24%17Interactive Math Project (IMP)Systemic Initiative for MontanaMathematics and Science (SIMMS)6.68%72.99%5Mathematics Application - GlencoeTotal 0.10%35.6%164Mathematics (Integrated)I and II Course CurriculaSchool District Adoption/Purchasing Cycle SurveyAll school districts were invited to complete an online survey that collected informationregarding their district adoption and purchasing practices and timelines for theelementary, middle, and high school levels. Curriculum leaders, superintendents, and/orprincipals from 141 school districts responded to the survey (48% of districts),representing 67 percent of the statewide student population. Table 6 and Table 7 reporton the curricula adoption practices of the districts, as well as the general timeline inwhich they adopt or purchase core curricula materials.Table 6. SCHOOL DISTRICT CURRICULA ADOPTION PRACTICESElementary School(Grades K–5)Middle School(Grades 6–8)High School(Grades 9–12)District-wideCurricula AdoptionEach BuildingDetermines whichCurricula to UseNo FormalAdoption Policy75%16%9%75%13%12%67%14%19%12

Table 7. SCHOOL DISTRICT CURRICULA PURCHASING CYCLESPurchase LessThan Every 6YearsPurchaseEvery 6–8YearsPurchaseEvery 9–11YearsPurchase ry School(Grades K–5)Middle School(Grades 6–8)High School(Grades 9–12)The data reported in Table 8 reflects the purchasing timelines of the districts reporting.The percentage of districts is based on the number of districts responding to the survey(Elementary: 140 districts; Middle: 138 districts; High: 134 districts).Table 8. SCHOOL DISTRICT CURRICULA PURCHASING TIMELINESNewly PurchasedCurricula in 2008Will PurchaseWill PurchaseWill PurchaseCurricula Within 2Curricula WithinCurricula in 5 Years3–5 YearsYears% of% of% of% of% of% of% of% districtsstudentreporting population reporting population reporting population reporting populationElementarySchool(Grades K–5)Middle School(Grades 6–8)High School(Grades %18%5%1%53%37%26%12%21%14%ConclusionWhile this survey did not collect information from 100 percent of the districts, this datarepresents the majority of school districts and is the most thorough accounting ofmathematics curricula usage to date. In addition, this is the first statewide record ofschool district adoption and purchasing cycles.With the majority of school districts adopting or purchasing core curricula at theelementary, middle, and high school levels within the next five years, the state has animportant opportunity to provide sound information regarding curricula that aligns withthe newly revised mathematics standards for Washington State. Aligned curriculum is13

an essential first step towards improving mathematics education for all students inWashington State.The final recommendations for elementary, middle, and high school basic curricula arescheduled to be made in December 2008 for Grades K–8 and January 2009 for Grades9–12. By disaggregating the curricula usage and future purchasing plans of districtscollected to date and analyzing which districts are or are not using the recommendedcurricula, OSPI, in partnership with the Legislature and other statewide serviceproviders, will be able to effectively target resources and support to those districts ingreatest need. This data will be compiled in January 2009, following final adoption of therecommended basic mathematics curricula by OSPI.14

V.AppendicesAppendix AElementary Primary CoreCurriculaElementary Frequency OfAdoptionElementary- Year leSchoolFrequencyOf AdoptionMiddleSchool - YearOf NextAdoptionABERDEENEverydayMathematicsEvery 6-8 Year2012MathscapeEvery 6-8Year2012ADNAScottForesman AddisonWesleyConnectedMath Project(CMP)ALMIRAEverydayMathematicsConnectedMath Project(CMP)ANACORTESInvestigationsMath athematicsEvery 4-5Years2012AUBURNEverydayMathematicsEvery 6-8 Year2009BAINBRIDGEISLANDBridges InMathematicsEvery 6-8 UEMathAs Needed2015ConnectedMath Project(CMP)ConnectedMath Project(CMP)High School- PrimaryCoreCurriculaHighSchool FrequencyOfAdoptionHighSchool Year OfNextAdoptionEvery aditional)Core PlusEvery 4-5Years2015McDougal/Littell(Traditional)Every 4-5Years2009ConnectedMath Project(CMP)Every 6-8Year2009Glencoe(Traditional)Every 6-8Year2009Passports ToMathematicsEvery 6-8Year2010Every 6-8Year2010ConnectedMath Project(CMP)ConnectedAs Needed2014As eparatoryMath (CPM)Core Plus

DISTRICTElementary Primary CoreCurriculaElementary Frequency OfAdoptionElementary- Year ENGEPath To dayMathematicsBLAINEInvestigationsBOISTFORTSRA equencyOf AdoptionMiddleSchool - YearOf NextAdoptionMath Project(CMP)ConnectedMath Project(CMP)Every 6-8Years2013ConnectedMath Project(CMP)2015ConnectedMath Project(CMP)Every dMath Project(CMP)BREWSTERBridges InMathematicsConnectedMath Project(CMP)16HighSchool Year OfNextAdoptionEvery 6-8Years2012Every 6-8Years2013Core PlusEvery 6-8Years2010McDougal/Littell(Traditional)Prentice HallBREMERTONHighSchool FrequencyOfAdoptionCollegePreparatoryMath (CPM)ConnectedMath Project(CMP)Every 6-8YearsHigh School- PrimaryCoreCurriculaUniversity ofChicagoSchoolMathematicsProject(UCSMP)University ofChicagoSchoolMathematicsProject(UCSMP)

DISTRICTElementary Primary CoreCurriculaElementary Frequency OfAdoptionElementary- Year GEPORTBridges InMathematicsConnectedMath Project(CMP)BRINNONScottForesman AddisonWesleyConnectedMath encyOf AdoptionMiddleSchool - YearOf NextAdoptionHigh School- PrimaryCoreCurriculaHighSchool FrequencyOfAdoptionHighSchool Year OfNextAdoptionInvestigationsEvery 6-8Years2017ConnectedMath Project(CMP)Every 6-8Years2017Core PlusEvery 6-8Years2017ScottForesman AddisonWesleyEvery 6-8Years2009MathscapeEvery 6-8Years2010Traditional Prentice HallEvery 6-8Years2010CAPE FLATTERYInvestigationsCARBONADOHarcourt ematicsCASTLE ENTRAL KITSAPEverydayMathematicsMcDougalLittellAs NeededAs Needed20092012ConnectedMath Project(CMP)ConnectedMath Project(CMP)ConnectedMath Project(CMP)ConnectedMath Project(CMP)ConnectedMath Project(CMP)17HoltAs

districts throughout Washington State are using at the elementary, middle, and high school levels. It also shares information about how frequently school districts plan to adopt and/or purchase mathematics instructional materials. This Executive Summary highlights important pieces of legis