Laserfiche WebLink
r <br /> Problems with Changing Curriculum <br /> Immediate fall in scores hypothetically due to: <br /> • Conflict with prior methods (Everyday Math long division algorithm) <br /> • Teachers unfamiliar with new curriculum <br /> Take the case of Cohort 2017 whose decline started with the introduction of Everyday Math and who's <br /> crash was coincidental with their introduction to Connected Math. The conclusions are clouded by the <br /> turnover in the MMS Math Dept. <br /> Quashnet Avg, <br /> Cohort 1Grade 3 4 5 6 7 8 Aff non EM EM <br /> 2007 <br /> 2008 <br /> 2049 0,79 <br /> 20i 0 0.84 <br /> 2011 D.91 D,96 <br /> 2412 1.20 0.74 0.89 1.20 1.20 <br /> 2013 0,68 0.88 0.80 0.58 0,68 0.79 0.79 <br /> 2014 0.67 0.82 0.79 0.72 0.75 0.756 0.786 <br /> 2015 0,87 1.15 1.01 1.02 0.82 0.81 1.009 1.009 <br /> 2016 1.20 0.83 0.86 " 0 92 0.63 0.63 0.951 0.963 0.915 <br /> 2017 0.89 0.94 1178 D.8.1 0.54 0.35 D.854 0.911 4.797 <br /> 2018 1.21 1 1 88 17 97 0.96 1.073 1.212 1.027 <br /> 201908 ' J2 �08 � )r79 <br /> 0.917 1.081 0.863 <br /> 2020 OB ' 0E $7 1.001 1.001 <br /> 2021 1 1 :` IN <br /> to 1,104 1.104 <br /> 2022 1.061 1.461 <br /> Avg 1.06 0.94 0.88 0.91 0.74 0.74 0.97 0.99 0.97 <br /> Avg non EM 1.05 0.90 0.87 0.94 0.75 0,81 <br /> M� .: 4 . X1:378 (1;812 0.709 0.594 <br /> StdDev-all 0.13 0.18 0.08 0.15 0.15 0.18 <br /> Stdev non EM -o.17 0.21 0.09 0.17 4,12 0.09 <br /> CBV &cM _. � 9 �ta09 0.22 0.23 <br /> The data presented is the fraction of students achieving proficient or higher in the MCAS divided, or <br /> normalized by the state average fraction. The table shows some interesting facts about Everyday Math. <br /> 3rd grade -6th Grade improvement 3.5%, 16.4, 0.9%, -7.2%meaning that the average improvement <br /> over 4 grades in 4 years is about+3.5%. Remember this is normalization to the state average which <br /> is hardly that of a high performance school district. <br /> The argument in favor of Everyday Math is that the fraction of proficient plus is increasing. The 3rd <br /> grade score is 24%higher than the 6th grade score which would indicate that the longer the exposure to <br /> the curriculum,the higher the performance. <br /> Conclusions <br /> Educator's Guide What Works in Teaching Math?Robert E. Slavin. Johns Hopkins University, <br /> Cynthia Lake, Johns Hopkins University, Cynthia Groff, University of Pennsylvania, January 2010 <br />