SITES

Districts with experience using standards-based middle school mathematics curricula share their implementation stories.

STORIES

Return to Map
View Text List of Story Sites



Implementation Story

MATH Thematics

Lebanon, MO

The Lebanon R-3 School District covers approximately 250 square miles in south central Missouri. The county population is approximately 32,000 and the most recent census in 2000 reported nearly 12,000 residents inside the city limits. Currently more than 4,000 students attend Lebanon schools, with 300 students in a 6th grade school and 1000 students in one junior high (grades 7-9) building. This places Lebanon Public Schools in the top 10% of school districts in Missouri in terms of size. Tourism, agriculture, industry, and retail sales are the major sources of income in the area.

The Middle School Mathematics Curriculum

In 1995, Lebanon changed from homogeneous grouping of students for mathematics instruction to heterogeneous grouping and began a middle school teaming strategy. Prior to 1996, the mathematics curriculum was lacking in real-life applications, and not preparing students well for continued mathematics studies. There was too much repetition in content across grades, especially on basic skills. Under the leadership of veteran 6th & 7th grade math teachers and the district technology coordinator, the teachers decided to explore alternative curricula better aligned to the NCTM Standards. They were invited to join a statewide NSF-funded teacher enhancement project (Missouri Middle school Mathematics - M3) which involved investigating and piloting standards-based curricula.

Our primary goal in seeking a curriculum change was to improve student achievement in mathematics by using common instructional methods and materials in grades 6-8. We liked the denseness and connectedness of the STEM materials (now Math Thematics). Students were required to read, reason, conjecture, discover, and demonstrate their thinking. We were able to visit Jefferson City,MO, where they were implementing STEM, and felt that the involvement of the students and the role of the teacher were well aligned to what we were seeking for our students in Lebanon.

Strategy for Implementation

YEAR

Grade 6 and Grade 7

Grade 8

1995-1996

* Became aware of M3 Project and joined

* Explored NSF Curricula, including Math Thematics

 

1996-1997

* Used pilot version Math Thematics materials with all 6th and 7th graders.

*Teachers joined the M3 Project.

1997-1998

* Continued using pilot version Math Thematics materials, awaiting arrival of final version.

* Decided to wait for final version of Math Thematics.

1998-1999

* Full implementation of Math Thematics.

* 1st year of full implementation (except for 2 sections of 8th grade algebra, and possibly 2 sections of 8th grade consumer math))



Challenges

Parental concerns.

First and foremost, parental concerns were a hurdle for us during the first semester of piloting. The parents' major concerns were not being able to help their children with their math homework and the frustration their students were experiencing. The math was different from what parents had experienced in school. Because of this, we decided to do 3 things:

  • At the beginning of the first year of implementation (1996-1997), the schools sent letters to parents about the nature of the new mathematics program, describing its characteristics and how parents could help with the process.
  • A parent meeting was held at the end of the first quarter. This was a time where information was shared about the STEM math series, why the change was made, what parents could do to help students, and listening to parent concerns. Teachers realized this was a radical change for both parents and students. As a result of this meeting, teachers made adaptations to ease this transition for the students. Teachers were available before and after school and by phone to assist students and parents on a daily basis.

In the future, parents will receive information about STEM during the registration period in August.

  • We recruited the newspapers to do a feature on our new middle school mathematics program, which was very positive.

Getting students to read and think.

Since the problems assigned, required students to construct their own algorithms and meanings with the new curriculum, we had to allow students more time to think. The intense reading required continues to be a challenge for some students. However, we feel this is justified as it will help prepare students for required performance assessments.

Changing teaching practices.

Methods of teaching were adapted. How to budget instructional time with a new program was a challenge. For example, the E2 problems, required time for students to explore and conjecture. Grading the E2 projects required the use of scoring guides, assessing student thinking and communication. This was different than with traditional mathematics materials that focus more on content than processes. With the heavy emphasis on group work it became necessary to implement cooperative learning structures to insure individual accountability and equal participation.

Setting an implementation schedule.

Looking back, we would have changed our implementation schedule. Because of the sequential nature of the Math Thematics curriculum, we would have started the first year with 6th grade only. Year 2, we would have followed up with the 7th grade, and in the third year we would have included the 8th grade. We tried to do too much too quickly because we were eager for change.

Supports..

As a result of participating in the M3 Project, collaboration with teachers in our own district as well as with teachers from other districts during M3 meetings became routine. We broke a long tradition of not knowing what our fellow teachers were doing in their classrooms, especially between buildings. We supported one another by planning together at grade levels and dividing the workload.

Advice from experienced users..

We had the entire set of pilot materials to explore. When we had questions concerning the pilot materials, we were able to contact the writers and other schools who were implementing STEM with our questions. This contact was very helpful.

Administrative support.

The key component for adopting an innovative curriculum is to have administrative support. At the beginning of the project we (the teachers and the technology cordinator) informed the principals and the central office personnel of what we were doing. Because of this, we received the necessary support.

 

Results

MMAT Math scores - % of students scoring in the top two quintiles

1993-94

1994-95

1995-96

1996-97

1997-98

Grade

District

State

District

State

District

State

District

State

District

State

6

90*

72

89*

73

91

73

88

77

93

80

7

56*

60

64*

61

67

62

84

66

81

67

8

76*

64

65*

65

66*

67

74

67

=

=

MMAT Math scores - % of students scoring in the bottom two quintiles

1993-94

1994-95

1995-96

1996-97

1997-98

Grade

District

State

District

State

District

State

District

State

District

State

6

5*

16

6*

16

5

16

6

13

3

10

7

28*

25

18*

25

20

24

6

20

8

18

8

14*

23

24*

22

22

21

13

21

=

=

Source: Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
Missouri Master Achievement Test (Spring 1994-98)
* Although these grades took the MMAT, they were not using MATH Thematics.
= In 1997, a new state mandated test, the Missouri Assessment Program (MAP) was implemented.
‡ Not all districts in the state took the MMAT.



MAP Math Scores-% of students scoring in the top two levels

1997-1998 1998-1999 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003
Grade District State District State District State District State District State District State
8 15 13 12 10 15 14 20 15 13 14 17 14

MAP Math Scores-% of students scoring in the bottom two levels

1997-1998 1998-1999 1999-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003
Grade District State District State District State District State District State District State
8 54 60 56 64 57 57 53 54 44 55 41 51

Source: Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
Missouri Assessment Program (Spring 1997-2003)

 

 

Acknowledgement: The Show-Me Center is indebted to Carol Bauer of the Lebanon School District for assistance in developing this story.