Materials considered for review for this indicator were STEM projects. The instructional materials reviewed for Grade 2 do not meet the expectations for this indicator. The review team found that the instructional materials assess grade level content beyond the scope of the grade. The out of grade level standards assessed are not Mathematically reasonable for this grade level.

STEM Materials that assess grade level content beyond Grade 2.

• The Cake Walk STEM project on pages 73 – 88 of the teacher STEM project edition:
  • This project asks students to decorate their cake symmetrically. This is not to be addressed until Grade 4 according to 4.G.A.3 Recognize a line of symmetry for a two-dimensional figure as a line across the figure such that the figure can be folded along the line into matching parts. Identify line-symmetric figures and draw line of symmetry.
  • This project asks students to partition into sixteenths as the denominator. This is not to be addressed until after Grade 4 according to 4.NF.B. Build fractions from unit fractions by applying and extending previous understanding of operations on whole numbers. (Grade 4 Expectations in this domain are limited to fractions with denominators 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, and 100.)
• Math Mini-Choppers STEM project on pages 17 – 52 of the teacher STEM project edition:
  • This project asks students to demonstrate a multiplication with up to three digits. This is not to be addressed until Grade 3 according to 3.NBT.A.3 Multiply one-digit whole numbers by multiples of 10 in the range 10-90 using strategies based on place value and properties of operations.
  • This project asks students to demonstrate estimation. This is a structural part of this activity. This is not to be addressed until Grade 3 according to 3.OA.D.8 Solve two-step word problems using the four operations. Represent these problems using equations with a letter standing for the unknown quantity. Assess the reasonableness of answers using mental computation and estimation strategies including rounding.
    

Review Team Note: A separate supplemental digital assessment database is available for an additional purchase cost. The review team did not analyze this supplemental digital assessment database as evidence for indicator 1a due to the fact that this additional component is not provided as part of the core materials.

*Evidence updated 10/27/15

The instructional materials reviewed for Grade 2 do not meet expectations for focus because the material did not spend the large majority of time on the major clusters in the grade. A total of 54 activities/lessons are provided, and some may be repeated or take additional class periods to complete. However, of the 54 only 37 of the lessons are aligned to major work of the grade. This would mean that if the 37 lessons were fully aligned, 68.5% of the time is spent on the major work, which places it in the lower range of grade level expectations. Looking more closely, the percent of time spent on major work is below 68.5% because there are lessons that are labeled as aligned to major work of the grade, but with activities in the lessons that do not actually align. Student exercises are generally weak in building conceptual understanding and lack opportunities for students to explain their reasoning or critique the reasoning of others. Here are a few examples of the misalignment:

• STEM "Museum Heist" is not a focused alignment and a few of the standards that are labeled are not addressed.
• The lesson in the teacher edition on page 218 does not incorporate concrete models, drawings or work with properties. The lesson introduces regrouping taught as a procedure rather than with concrete work decomposing tens or hundreds.

In addition, there are examples of work beyond the grade level:

• ART, page 77, has a measurement and data lesson titled "Frank is a Gentleman." The visual has the radius drawn and labeled, measurements are in tenths and yards need to be converted to meters. Measurements in the teacher edition appear to use millimeters.
• Teacher edition, page 121, has work above the grade level. Memorizing the times tables is not a required fluency in Grade 2.
• Teacher edition, pages 2-18 include both one- and two-step word problems.

Because of these misalignments, the actual time spent on major work would be less than 68.5%, below the expected percentage for this grade.

The instructional materials for Grade 2 do not meet the expectation for coherence. Examples of missing coherence include:

• Teacher edition lesson, page 387, does not support the major work because it skips student counting and iterating in the unit. There may be an error in the graph for the sunflower, which is not a line plot, but labeled as such.
• Teacher edition lessons in 2.MD are not extended to standards in 2.OA to provide context and support.
• Teacher edition lesson page, 425, does not partition rectangles into arrays to use for repeated addition and skip counting which would support 2.NBT and 2.OA work.
• The STEM project "Cake Walk" does not enhance coherence with major work at the grade. It does not fully address the additional work that it appears to cover as indicated by the label.
• Student edition, page 37-52 includes only minimal connections to adding (2.OA.C.3-2.OA.C.4).

The instructional materials reviewed for school year viability do not meet expectations for the indicator because the amount of content is not viable for one school year. There are only 54 activities and lessons provided for the year. Additionally,

• Lessons that allow for in-depth work in 2.OA.A.1 and 2.OA.B.2 should be here and are not. There are six lessons between the three resources labeled with standards in 2.OA.A.1 and 2.OA.B.2 out of the 54 total lessons. Beyond that, not all of these lessons are fully aligned to 2.OA. (e.g., STEM lesson, "Museum Heist").
• The STEM lesson "Math Mini-Choppers" does not fully address 2.NBT.A.2 and 2.NBT.A.3 which is also major work that calls for specific attention and activity.

The amount of time on major work in Grade 2 instructional materials is not viable for one school year and does not foster coherence between grades. Teachers would need to find supplemental resources in order to cover the content for Grade 2.

The instructional materials for Grade 2 do not meet the expectations for consistency with the progressions in the standards.

• The progression of the problem types and moving from one-step to two-step problems in 2.OA.A.1, specifically ART, page 1, does not support the progressions from previous grades. It also does not develop the types of problem solving situations students need to work on in Grade 2.
• 2.G.A.3 on ART page 114 does not fully develop the idea of equal shares, the unit fraction of three/thirds as a whole and does not fully build from halves and fourths of Grade 1 as consistent with the progressions.

Grade 2 materials do not give students extensive work on grade level problems.

• The STEM project "Growing Flowers" is labeled 2.MD.A.2 but does not address or identify as fluency and strategies aren't developed to support fluency within 100.
• Computation throughout all three resources is a rush to fluency and little development and understanding of place value and groups is evident. 2.G.A.2 does not address repeated addition as a strategy for multiplication in any of the labeled lessons, but instead multiplication is seen in lessons.
• Work from prior grades in teacher edition on page 387 is not explicitly identified, aiding in coherence between grades. Connections between Grade 3 category data and Grade 4 category data is not evident.
• Finally, it is stated on page 101 in the teacher tip to "Remind students they are revisiting work they did in prior grades," but the connections between concepts are not clearly articulated for teachers and are not explicitly named for students, just merely mentioned.

For all these reasons, the expectations for materials being consistent with the progressions in the standards is not met.

The Grade 2 instructional materials reviewed for coherence at the grade do not meet the expectations. Learning objectives are written and either address learning at the individual standard level, or do not really accurately express what is happening in the lesson. For example:

• In teacher edition on page 425, students are folding paper to make equal-sized squares, or they are covering a rectangle with equal-sized pieces. This is perhaps early area and connects more closely to 2.G.A.2 and the 2.G.A.3 label is inaccurate as students are not asked to describe shares. In addition, the summary on page 429 asks for covering the surface of 16 and specifically mentions dividing the squares.
• The teacher edition on page 3, offers no visuals in the material to help build from work in the previous grade.
• In other instances the objectives show that above grade-level work is being covered in the lesson, such as decimals on page 446 of the teacher edition.

Lessons are generally not connecting multiple clusters or domains in the teacher edition. Each lesson is taught in isolation, as a standard or a cluster of standards within the same domain. Some standards are placed where there is a natural connection in lessons covering 2.NBT and 2.MD. The STEM project "Cake Walk" does not fully provide evidence of where in the activities the standards cross domains.