First, for Algebra Readiness, the Mind Reseach Institute's Blueprint text & software must be thoroughly examined. Also, it should be examined as one of the two Math Intervention texts. If it works well, a seventh grade Algebra Readiness class can be offered instead of Math Intervention. This is semantics only. It should allow state funds to be used for the Blueprint text.
Second, for the normal math sequence, CGP's Algebra text should be one of the two evaluated. It is straightforward, lightweight and relatively inexpensive. If it is evaluated, then its seventh grade and sixth grade editions should also be tested in classes. Bridging k-12 is something we must do. We have plenty of our own tech resources to complement the CGP text.
Third, in my humble opinion, if CGP is selected for Algebra, then the Dolciani-inspired Geometry and Algebra Book 2 (McDougall-Littell) should be evaluated. Sacramento has specifically demanded that these texts remain current and complete. Again, this is merely an opinion, but I think there is a good flow between the two series. Again, we have plenty of our own tech resources to complement the Dolciani-inspired text.
Fourth, the other texts to evaluate should be one of the mainstream publishers for Grade 7 - Algebra 2. For example, the Glencoe texts or Holt or Prentice-Hall. Consistency of approach does matter. Learning curves for students and teachers are easier. Also, it seems strange to say "I like the vocabulary treatment in this series in 7th grade, but it doesn't matter in 8th grade." Picking different publishers is really saying, the publisher doesn't matter, which, if true, lets just flip a coin and save the trouble.
Our decision at the end of November is to select a mainstream publisher to compare CGP and Dolciani against. Comparing mainstreams to each other will yield minor differences.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment