An Evaluation of K-5 Math Resources at

Bloomfield Hills School District

May 18th, 2019

Harleen Singh
Bloomfield Hills School District
● High performing district, located in
Bloomfield Hills, MI
● Approximately 5,500 students
● 4 Elementary buildings, 3 Middle
School buildings (two that are
grades 4-8, one that is grades 5-8),
and one High School
● Predominantly white demographic,
with 8.5% economically
disadvantaged
● The community is a well-to-do,
educated demographic.
Background
No common Over the years,
Common Teachers resource was holes and
Core spent time purchased: inconsistencies
Standards learning Teachers started developed in
implemented creating own the K-5
about the
(2012- 13) instructional mathematics
CCSS materials instruction

“An analysis of studies shows implementing and monitoring an

aligned curriculum to result in a measurable impact in student
achievement.”
- District Administration Journal, 2004
The Need
● Teachers spent time learning & developing lessons and units to align with
the CCSS

● Pulling from various resources → Inconsistency

● Publishers had the opportunity to expand their own understanding of the

CCSS and develop resources aligned with the new standards

● Time to start Resource Review Process!

Purpose of the Evaluation
● In order to address the issue of inconsistencies in our K-5 curriculum, the
district began the process of piloting and adopting a new unified math
program for K-5.

● The purpose of this study is to analyze the effectiveness of the two

programs piloted in the K-5 classrooms in the Bloomfield Hills School
District.
 ● Math Teacher Leader
Math ● 20 classroom

Resource teachers/support staff

Review ● 2 administrators
● Publisher Trainers
Committee
(MRRC)

Each building and grade level (K-5) was represented

What was Investigated?
The following was considered:
● The extent to which Math Expression 2018 and enVision 2.0
support students achievement of the Common Core State
Standards

● The extent to which Math Expression 2018 and enVision 2.0 helps
students to learn in multiple ways

● The extent to which Math Expression 2018 and enVision 2.0 meet
the academic needs of all learners
Eureka Math
enVision
2.0
enVision 2.0
enVision
2.0
EDM 4
Move on to EDM 4 Move on to
Round 2 Round 3
Investigations

Math In Focus
Math Exp
Math 2018
Expressions Math Exp
2018
Bridges

Bridges
Georgia Math
OUR PROCESS
 Timeline of Resource Selection
2017

● Develop K-5 Math Vision, Start Review Process, Invite vendors to

Spring
present potential resources, Define Pilot Process

Summer/ ● Training for Pilot teachers

Fall ● Begin Pilot Process

Winter ● Reconvene MRRC to continue analysis of Pilot materials

(into 2018 ) ● Come to consensus on program recommendation

Feb-March ● Recommendation to Learning Services Team; incorporate feedback

2018 ● Presentation to the Board
2018

● Teacher training
Spring - Fall
● Full implementation of aligned K-5 Math Resource
Data Collection
September 2017 - February 2018
 Pilot Check-in Meetings
October December January

● Pluses, Minuses, and ● Analyzing Student Work ● Assessed for the

Wonderings
● Uncovered several strengths in
both programs
● Biggest takeaway: there is a
need to increase rigor in our
current math program
Protocol
● TRU Framework
● Gave teachers an opportunity
to reflect upon the type and
depth of thinking each
program allowed for
implementation of Standards
for Mathematical Practices
● The Practices describe a
variety of expertise that
educators should seek to
develop in their students

February

● Student Feedback
● Reviewed Data we collected through the various Rubrics
● Discussed strengths and concerns for both programs
BHS Teacher Rubrics
Administered 4 times during the pilot

● 27 - 44 questions (depending on when the rubric was administered)

● Questions addressed the following topics: Vision, Common Core State

Standards Alignment, Differentiation, Student Engagement & Assessment,
Technology & Resources, Delivery Structures & Overall thoughts.
Overall Percentages for BHS Teacher Rubrics
TRU Framework Rubrics (December 2017)
● The TRU Framework encourages teachers to approach their mathematics
instruction in a different manner
○ Not only focus on the content, but in which way the content is being delivered.

● The prompts address the following topics:

○ The Mathematics
○ Cognitive Demand
○ Access to the Mathematical Content
○ Agency, Ownership, & Identity
○ Formative Assessment.
Overall Percentages for TRU Framework

Teacher Feedback
Math Expressions 2018
● Practice & Remembering
● Conceptual understanding
● PMT - adaptive math trainer
● Performance tasks
● Re-teach/Challenge option
● Family letters
enVision 2.0
● Inquiry kick-off
● I can… statements
● Math/Science integration
● Technology components
● Enrichment Opportunities
● Differentiation Opportunities
● Parent support
● Time/resources for kids to practice
● Interactive whiteboards (kids love!)
● Depth of content
 Student Feedback
enVision 2.0 Math Expressions 2018

● “I like that it challenges me” (2nd ● “Just right, not too hard” (3rd
grader) grader)

● “It pushes us to think more about ● “It is easier” (3rd grader)

what we are doing in math” (3rd
grader) ● “I liked the quick checks. It helped
me remember what we learned.”
● “I like how they teach multi-step (4th grader)
problems.” (4th grader)
● “The math makes sense!” (4th
● “I like the book. I used to not be grader)
good at math. Then when I got
used to the math book, I started
having great grades that my sister
was even very impressed.” (5th
grader)
enVision 2.0 & Math Expressions 2018

● Solid, rigorous programs

● Cohesive with common vocabulary

● Clear Learning Targets

NCTM Effective Mathematics Teaching Practices
Successful Mathematics Strategies:

● High level of student engagement

● Demand higher-order thinking

● Follow an inquiry-based model of instruction

● Connect to students’ prior knowledge to make meaningful real – world

applications

● Integrate literacy activities into the courses

Conclusion of Results

”
Student learning of mathematics
“depends fundamentally on what
happens inside the classroom as
teachers and learners interact over the
curriculum,” (Ball & Forzani, 2011).

Based on the multiple data points that were collected and analyzed,
teachers clearly indicated enVision 2.0 best supported our students and
improved overall instruction.
What sets enVision 2.0 apart

● Deep Problem Solving Opportunities

● Explicit teaching of Mathematical Practices

● Strong online components

● Inquiry based jump starts

● Rigorous & Challenging

● Many differentiation opportunities

Recommendation for Bloomfield Hills
Schools to purchase and implement
enVision 2.0 in K-5 classrooms

February 2018
Next Steps

● Full implementation of enVision 2.0 in all K-5 classrooms

● Explore professional learning opportunities

○ Teacher learning around implementing the workshop model

○ Conversations around the overall philosophy of mathematics instruction

○ Determine districts’ philosophy on homework for elementary students

● Continue to be reflective practitioners in order to best support our

students
Any Questions?
Harleen Singh
hsingh@bloomfield.org