tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4649338642905686469.post6184302533251412243..comments2024-02-28T22:24:07.299-08:00Comments on Community Forum for HCC (APP) in Seattle Schools: Middle School Math Adoption MaterialsAndrew Siegelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06830585083467140758noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4649338642905686469.post-16522499732806982732017-05-18T12:48:46.753-07:002017-05-18T12:48:46.753-07:00Personally, I have really liked the Math in Focus/...Personally, I have really liked the Math in Focus/Singapore stuff for elementary level math. My kid with school changes and acceleration used three elementary curricula and is now on Glencoe, and I think the Singapore stuff works way better than the others (but only when the teachers are trained in that methodology and have buy-in). After looking over the materials under consideration, I was happy to see Math in Focus has a middle school curriculum. It would be a natural segue from elementary to middle school to continue on the same methdology. I think transitioning from Singapore to non-Singapore entails a lot of problems without a lot of benefit.<br /><br />Some people criticize Singapore programs for not being strictly aligned to Common Core. I think that criticism is unfair, since Singapore goes into more depth and covers less material in a year but then has to repeat way less material year to year. By the time you got to 9th grade, all CC requirements are met. Besides, CC is not the end-all/be-all. I like the expertise and fluidity that Math in Focus has produced in the kids I have worked with both here and abroad.<br /><br />What I positively hate about Glencoe is how it layers complexity without any purpose. For instance, when you start doing geometry and are calculating the areas of irregular shapes, it forces the kids to do super complex arithmetic with weird fraction denominators like 63rds and 87ths. So they cram a bit of challenging fraction review in while the kids are learning to calculate area. I dislike layering complexity on new tasks that way. Glencoe often seems set up to undermine itself because of that approach. I think that and other issues makes Glencoe an inferior curriculum. I remain confused why it was selected, actually. But I guess math curricula are always rich with controversy one way or another.Simonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4649338642905686469.post-50028870442052661202017-05-18T12:47:12.481-07:002017-05-18T12:47:12.481-07:00Personally, I have really liked the Math in Focus/...Personally, I have really liked the Math in Focus/Singapore stuff for elementary level math. My kid with school changes and acceleration used three elementary curricula and is now on Glencoe, and I think the Singapore stuff works way better than the others (but only when the teachers are trained in that methodology and have buy-in). After looking over the materials under consideration, I was happy to see Math in Focus has a middle school curriculum. It would be a natural segue from elementary to middle school to continue on the same methdology. I think transitioning from Singapore to non-Singapore entails a lot of problems without a lot of benefit.<br /><br />Some people criticize Singapore programs for not being strictly aligned to Common Core. I think that criticism is unfair, since Singapore goes into more depth and covers less material in a year but then has to repeat way less material year to year. By the time you got to 9th grade, all CC requirements are met. Besides, CC is not the end-all/be-all. I like the expertise and fluidity that Math in Focus has produced in the kids I have worked with both here and abroad.<br /><br />What I positively hate about Glencoe is how it layers complexity without any purpose. For instance, when you start doing geometry and are calculating the areas of irregular shapes, it forces the kids to do super complex arithmetic with weird fraction denominators like 63rds and 87ths. So they cram a bit of challenging fraction review in while the kids are learning to calculate area. I dislike layering complexity on new tasks that way. Glencoe often seems set up to undermine itself because of that approach. I think that and other issues makes Glencoe an inferior curriculum. I remain confused why it was selected, actually. But I guess math curricula are always rich with controversy one way or another.Simonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4649338642905686469.post-83580100212478109962017-05-16T11:19:16.879-07:002017-05-16T11:19:16.879-07:00My daughter was at Cascadia (AKA Lowell or Lincoln...My daughter was at Cascadia (AKA Lowell or Lincoln) in 2nd grade. She was part of a group "piloting" the curriculum. They used 4 different materials that year. On all 3 MAP tests in K and 1st grade (total of 6), her math scores were 98th or 99th percentile. 2nd grade MAP scores were 83rd. Things went back to normal for her in 3rd/4th, but given this outcome, I'd rather my kid not be the guinea pig as a middle schooler. Missing material will have a bigger impact than in early elementary.<br /><br />Just putting it out there if folks haven't had their kid pilot stuff yet. It's not necessarily a good thing to be part of that group.Pilotnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4649338642905686469.post-86436633615688355652017-05-05T12:47:34.718-07:002017-05-05T12:47:34.718-07:00The new middle schools will be using the existing ...The new middle schools will be using the existing curriculum (in so much as any middle school does) since this adoption will not be done before next year (and there is no budget yet to buy the committee's recommendation).<br /><br />Since as you quoted below the pilots only last 6-8 weeks, they will probably entail 1-2 units. I suspect the staff want the real grade levels to try them out the most but its certainly a conversation to strike up with your principal at the HCC Elementary level. <br /><br />I definitely recommend trying out the online versions and taking a look if you have any interest in this area.Benjamin Leishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10974191081762367425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4649338642905686469.post-84813956937419374282017-05-05T11:47:01.966-07:002017-05-05T11:47:01.966-07:00What will newly opening middle schools be using? H...What will newly opening middle schools be using? Had SPS done the adoption on the 7 year cycle, they could have moved beyond CMP by now. <br /><br />I'm curious what the materials pilot involves. The only requirement is that they "adhere strictly to the instructional materials." Do they pilot specific units, or are they required to use the full year? Can grades 4-5 HCC pilot materials? <br /><br /><i>Apply to pilot instructional materials<br />•In order to apply, you must be teaching Grades 6, 7, or 8 Math in a Seattle public school in the 2017-18 school year. <br />•The Adoption Committee will narrow potential instructional materials to a short list. These instructional materials will be piloted for 6-8 weeks in the fall in order to inform the final selection of instructional materials.</i><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com