Many districts and schools are deciding which math textbook to choose. In researching the effect of textbook choice upon student achievement, there is little reliable research available. Only two states have collected data so making curriculum decisions based on research is extremely thin. The most "popular" curriculums are Saxon Math, Silver-Burdett Ginn Mathematics, and Scott Foresman-Addison Wesley Math. So how have states/districts made curriculum decisions? To answer this question please reference the frank remarks quoted by Beverlee Jobrack, author of The Tyranny of the Textbook. She explains the educational publishing industry is driven by "sales and marketing teams." Problem:
How in the world will decision makers align curriculum to Common Core Standards? Do you question statements from various publishers, "Yes, we are aligned to Common Core Standards." Who needs to look deeper?
Study Finds Achievement Differences Tied to Curricular Choices. Erik Robelsen. 9.20.12. Education Week - Curriculum Matters
http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/curriculum/2012/09/at_a_time_when_a.html?cmp=ENL-CM-NEWS2
One of the interesting issues here is the question of who would fund truly independent research about which types of curricular materials are most effective. The decision of what to purchase and adopt usually falls on district administrators, so schools are the ones who would want this information the most. Unfortunately, I don't think even the largest district budgets can fund studies on the kind of scale where they could actually objectively compare different programs' impacts across time. The higher education community seems disinterested in this topic for the most part, with their input being more on the R + D side behind the curricular materials in the first place. Sure, these companies are willing to front money to have their products "studied" but when we look at the parallels with other industries, say the prescription drug companies for example, we know that those are not truly independent studies for the sake of gaining more knowledge about how different products work. They are for the purpose of sales. Scientists start with a question and search for the answer. You can't start with what you would like the answer to be.
ReplyDeleteI think the same question could be asked about Title 1 vendors an the schools that choose them. Are schools going around studying different vendors and their impact across time? Even though they want to choose the best vendor for their school, do they have the funding, resources and time to objectively collect data on this topic? Probably not. So what makes something appealing to them? Interesting question. How do people choose anything really? In reality I think most people make their choices and then try to use "data" to back them up, not the other way around.
At Messmer, they adopted a new Common Core based math curriculum this year. At the prep, teachers are really struggling to meet students where they are. Second grade started out with finding the missing addend this year, and the teachers have said they're spending 3 days on a lesson that the book says will take 1, and the students are still struggling. If they just press on with the new books, I know many of my students will not be able to keep up. As another benchmark, a fourth grade teacher said the second chapter in the book is two and three digit multiplication, which they didn't do until February and March last year. She has students that can't put two digit numbers on a number line yet. I think the teachers are getting frustrated. At SRSL there seems to be more resistance to the new books, and I've heard some teachers say they are choosing not to use them because they know their students aren't ready for them. I feel their pain for sure! I think I have my work cut out for me this year, with significantly higher expectations for students who are really at the same skill level as they were before. Have any of the other sites adopted new CC related materials? What has the response been like?