Math Curricula, Jelly Donuts, and the Search for What Our Students Deserve

Eleven years ago, I wrote a blog post comparing math curricula to jelly doughnuts (go read it; it’s good and accurate).

At the time, it felt like every program hitting the market was either completely overstuffed with too much in the lessons to get through in a single block, or so loaded down with extra bells, whistles, and deep-fried decorations that the core mathematics got lost under all the glaze. Not to mention teachers having to sift through a plethora of books, online resources, and boxes of extra-help materials.

Looking back at that post today, I realized a hard truth: after evaluating those programs over a decade ago, our district didn’t adopt either. Instead, we relied on a supplementary program for over 11 years. The consequence? Years of students moving through our system with significant, systemic gaps in their mathematical understanding and skills.

This school year, however, brings fresh hope. We have officially kicked off a new math curriculum piloting process, and the landscape feels noticeably different.

Pilot #1: Innovamat (Building Thinking Classrooms & True Spiral Design)

We are currently piloting our first of two programs: Innovamat. Centered around Peter Liljedahl’s Building Thinking Classrooms framework, this program places rich student discourse and active problem-solving at the center of every lesson.

What excites me most about Innovamat is how pared-down and intentional it is, paired with its true spiral curriculum design. Rather than teaching concepts in isolated, multi-week blocks, Innovamat continuously revisits core mathematical ideas throughout the year, building upon itself. Curriculum creators seem to have finally realized how unwieldy and unrealistic past iterations were for everyday classroom execution. Innovamat certainly took note of others’ pitfalls.

Innovamat strips away the extra noise and focuses on the absolute essentials and deep understanding:

  • Manageable Lessons: The pacing is realistic, allowing teachers to complete an entire lesson within a standard math block.
  • Cohesive & Spiraled Structure: Concepts are continuously revisited in light, intentional touchpoints, preventing the “teach it once and forget it” phenomenon while keeping learning connected.
  • Focus on Discourse: Students are standing, talking, and working through math concepts together rather than passively sitting through lectures.

That isn’t to say it is without challenges. Because our students have spent years in a system that lacked deep, conceptual discourse, accessing some of the task-based material requires scaffolding and persistence. But because the core design is clean and intentionally spiraled, I am hopeful that our students will begin closing those foundational skill gaps quickly.

Pilot #2: Savvas enVision Math (Topical Architecture)

Later this fall, we will pivot to pilot our second curriculum option: Savvas enVision Math.

This second program also integrates elements of Building Thinking Classrooms and emphasizes student discourse, but it takes a more traditional, topical approach. Instruction is structured in distinct units focused on specific domains before moving to the next.

Savvas enVision also brings back a few more traditional support structures: multiple books to navigate, margin notes and guides for teachers, and built-in accessibility prompts designed to help teachers differentiate on the fly for all learners. There is more of the traditional teacher-led lesson design.

Comparing these two structural philosophies side-by-side will be an incredible learning experience for our district:

  1. Do our students benefit more from a true spiral design, like Innovamat, that offers continuous spaced practice, or from a topical approach, like enVision?
  2. Do we thrive with a streamlined, ultra-focused layout, or do we need the additional embedded teacher margin notes and resource options offered by a traditional publisher?

Hope on the Horizon

It is encouraging to see curriculum publishers finally listening to teachers and creating programs that prioritize student thinking over fluff.

While closing an 11-year gap in math understanding won’t happen overnight, placing student discourse, collaboration, and manageable lesson design at the center of instruction is the exact shift our students deserve. I look forward to sharing our findings as we move through both pilots this year!

Are you using either of these programs? What has your experience been?

Common Core Is NOT Making Your Child Cry

What is Common Core?

Common Core simply refers to a group of standards. Standards are NOT new to education; they have been around for a long time. However in the past, each state had their own set of standards. So what one student learned in 5th grade in California was different than what another 5th grader was learning in Michigan. Independent state standards made more sense back when we, as a society, didn’t move around quite as much; and before we had a Global Economy and technology bringing us – not just states, but countries – together. As times have changed, so have our needs.

Here is a quality 3 minute video to explain it.

What Are the Common Core Standards?

Standards are goals that a child needs to meet at each grade level. Standards are NOT methods, curriculum (textbooks purchased by districts), or tests.

For example, one 3rd grade English Language Arts Standard states:

CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RI.3.7
Use information gained from illustrations (e.g., maps, photographs) and the words in a text to demonstrate understanding of the text (e.g., where, when, why, and how key events occur).

That’s it, that’s the whole thing. I doubt anyone can argue that the above goal is a bad idea, or is making their child feel inadequate in any way. Okay, so most of the controversy centers around Math. I often hear statements like, “What’s wrong with the way I learned?” Well for starters, I’m guessing you have a base knowledge of how the actual function works. How many of us can explain why a fraction multiplied by aother fraction gives us a product that is less? We know, and can go through the motions of 1/2 x 1/3 = 1/6, but why? This is what Common Core is trying to have our students understand. There are LESS standards so that teachers can help students understand the WHY.

So let’s look at a 5th grade Math standard:

CCSS.MATH.CONTENT.5.NF.A.1
Add and subtract fractions with unlike denominators (including mixed numbers) by replacing given fractions with equivalent fractions in such a way as to produce an equivalent sum or difference of fractions with like denominators. For example, 2/3 + 5/4 = 8/12 + 15/12 = 23/12. (In general, a/b + c/d = (ad + bc)/bd.)

Yes, all this states is that a student will add or subtract a fraction finding a common denominator. The wording is a bit different than that, but that’s what the standard states. Nowhere does it mention HOW it is to be taught – that would be a method, which are often found in curriculums. The key phrase in the standard is ‘equivalent fractions’. Why is this so important? Well, in the past we have taught students to find the common denominator by finding all the factors. There was very little time to explore that 3/6 is equivalent to 1/2 and 15/30. When students, and adults, are allowed to manipulate the information – via number lines or fraction tiles/bars – a better understanding is gained. Again, I doubt anyone really has an issue with the standard.

So What’s All The Fuss About?

It’s videos like this that focus on a method, and call it Common Core Math. Critics seem to focus on one method – arguably a long drawn out one to really drive home their message – and rant about its inefficiency. However, while watching this video I realized the ‘host’ and his explanation in the beginning are a perfect example of WHY we NEED Common Core, and illustrates our general lack of understanding. In the beginning, around the 8 second mark, he says that you, “Carry the 1,” when he is subtracting 3 from 5. Please notice that he stated, “Minus,” this is incorrect, the correct term is subtract. However, the bigger problem came when he explained that we needed to “Carry the 1”. Without getting too involved, what the problem has us doing is ‘regrouping’ (called ‘borrowing’ in my day). It is the actual process of taking a group – of 100 in this example – and placing it in the tens place. I wonder, without showing how ‘inefficient’ Common Core is, would he have been able to explain the why behind the actions? While many of those interviewed stated, “It takes too long” and “It’s too much work”, for those of us who have done it over several years, yes it’s not the best method for us. For those students just beginning to learn this standard, this method may be the key to success.

Critics have lost sight, maybe they never had it, that Common Core teaches VARIOUS methods. This kind of teaching allows ALL students access and understanding. Once a student has a firm grasp on the concept, they will move to our more traditional method, or more likely pull out their smartphone and use the calculator.

Why Are We So Frustrated?

Publishers and testing companies (consortiums as well) have muddied the waters. Publishers such as Eureka (Engage New York) and Pearson have taken it upon themselves to teach only certain methods. In addition, there have been several reports of misprints, thus causing MAJOR confusion with students and parents, in Eureka and Engage NY. Somewhere along the way, these publishers have decided what methods to teach, and we as teachers should do as they say. These companies are not looking out for the best methods, or interest, of our students. They are in it for a profit.

Another frustration, on the part of teachers, has been testing. We have been aware of Common Core standards for several years now. However, we were still bound to give state mandated tests, as stipulated under President Bush’s ‘No Child Left Behind’. This left teachers wanting to dig into the new standards, but as many of them did not line up with the state standards, Common Core was pushed to the back burner. We had tests to give, and proficiency levels to meet – which all boiled down to money, none of which made it to classrooms. There was little time for teachers to really grasp the full concept of the new standards. We were being pulled in many directions, then thrown into Common Core.

The Solution?

Brace yourselves…Get rid of testing and ditch the mandated curriculum. The curriculum are those books – teachers editions, student textbooks and workbooks – created by FOR PROFIT companies. I’m not saying that I shouldn’t be held accountable, by all means I should. There should be several ways in which a student is allowed to show mastery. A test given by the state, or a consortium, is not the answer. What about the student who can eloquently explain a process through a video, poetry, or interview? What if a rubric were designed and the student could SHOW their understanding this way? That is much more powerful that some test that is reduced to a number. Student want to show off their work and understanding, not show off some paper with a number printed on it.

More importantly, I am a professional. I went to school to become a teacher. I learned to create lessons WITHOUT a teacher’s manual. I can look at a standards and design a lesson to fit the needs of my students. This is what I went to school for! I am constantly refining my skills. These curriculums have hindered the teaching profession. They aren’t all bad, in some ways they are helpful. They help chunk and sequence how/when standards are taught. I have NEVER used a curriculum that has met the needs of every child/teacher. If I need help, then the curriculum should be a safety net, not the holy grail of math, language arts, or science. The companies and curriculums have sent an unconscious message that teachers are incapable of doing their jobs without them telling us what to do. Shame on them.

Who Is Making Your Child Cry?

Publishers and testing companies. And to be honest, they make me cry too. Instead of demonizing Common Core, and complaining how ‘time consuming’ a problem is, question the companies. Why do THEY feel this method is best, can a student use a method that is NOT approved by them, are these companies really needed? Celebrate the standards, just don’t confuse methods, curriculum, and testing with the standards.

Related Post: Why Common Core Is ‘Bad’