Materials considered for review for this indicator were STEM projects. The instructional materials reviewed for Grade 3 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 3.

• Antique Calculator STEM project on pages 25 – 42 of the Teacher STEM Project Edition:
  • The assessment does not align to the objectives of this STEM project and does not completely address 3.NBT.1 and 3.NBT.2.

Rounding and subtraction are not addressed. Neither standard is stated to be addressed in any of the other STEM projects for Grade 3.

3.NBT.1 Use place value understanding to round whole numbers to the nearest 10 or 100

3.NBT.2 Fluently add and subtract within 1000 using strategies and algorithms based on place value, properties of operations, and/or the relationship between addition and subtraction.

• Delivery Route STEM project on pages 63 – 104 of the teacher STEM project edition:
  • This project asks students to convert between unlike units, multiplying fractions with whole numbers on page 70. This is not to be addressed until Grade 4 according to 4.NF.B.4 Apply and extend previous understandings of multiplication to multiply a fraction by a whole number.
  • This project asks students to convert feet to miles. This is not to be addressed until Grade 4 according to MD.A.1
    Know relative sizes of measurement units within one system of units including km, m, cm; kg, g; lb, oz.; l, ml; hr, min, sec. Within a single system of measurement, express measurements in a larger unit in terms of a smaller unit. Record measurement equivalents in a two-column table.
  • This project asks students to multiply decimals with whole numbers on page 73. This is not to be addressed until Grade 5 according to 5.NBT.B.7. Add, subtract, multiply, and divide decimals to hundredths, using concrete models or drawings and strategies based on place value, properties of operations, and/or the relationship between addition and subtraction; relate the strategy to a written method and explain the reasoning used.
• Tetrahedron Kite STEM project on pages 43 – 62 of the teacher STEM project edition:
  • This project asks students to assess fractions with denominators outside the range of Grade 3 expectations. This is not to be addressed until after Grade 3 according to 3.NF.A. Develop understanding of fractions as numbers (Grade 3 expectations in this domain are limited to fractions with denominators 2, 3, 4, 6, and 8)
    

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 3 do not meet expectations for focus because the materials do not spend the majority of class time on the major cluster of each grade.

A total of 68 activities/lessons are provided between the three resources, and some may be repeated or take additional class periods. However, only 46 of the lessons are aligned to major work at the grade according to the table of contents in the teacher edition, ART and STEM materials. This would mean that if the 46 lessons were fully aligned, 68% of the time is spent on the major work placing it at the lower end of the expected range. Looking more closely, the percent of time spent on major work would be below 68% considering there are lessons labeled as aligned to major work of the grade do not actually align. Examples of this misalignment are below:

• In the teacher edition on page 161, a lesson that is labeled as aligned to 3.OA.D.8 has limited development on two-step word problems, especially of the types suggested by the progressions document.
• In ART on page 25, students make flash cards.
• Page 383 in the teacher edition goes outside the scope of standard 3.MD.A.2 and includes ounces, pounds, and subtracting fractions.
• Page 72 in the teacher edition has limited alignment to the range of multiplication and division situations as indicated in the progressions document.

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

• In the 3.NF lessons (teacher edition, pages 292-294), there are denominators included that are beyond the scope of the grade-level work. The progressions document refers to fractions outside the scope of the Grade 3 expectations.
• In teacher edition, page 350, the lesson has connections between fractions and money, with denominators outside of the scope of Grade 3. There is also limited opportunity for students to explain reasoning as student exercises rely on filling in blanks (e.g., "cents as fractions of a dollar," page 350).
• In teacher edition, page 551 is off grade-level content. Symmetry is not far off Grade 3, considering the standard is to partition shapes into equal areas. The bigger problem is that students do little investigating or reasoning about shapes in lessons for 3.G.A.1 and 3.G.A.2. Students do not find the area of partitioned parts of shapes.
• In the lesson "three-dimensional figures," on page 557, students classify three-dimensional shapes by counting faces, bases and vertices. This is outside the scope of the grade.
• The decimal work in the STEM project "Ski Math" is beyond the scope of the grade.

Because of these misalignments, the actual time spent on major work would be less than the amount of time noted according to the table of contents.

The instructional materials for Grade 3 do not meet the expectation for coherence so that supporting content would enhance the major work of the grade. Examples of missed opportunities for coherence include:

• The ART lesson "Geometric Design" does not support the major work of 3.NF.
• The ART Lesson "Delivery Route" does not support the major work of addition and subtraction at the grade level; one data representation is a pie chart, and the standards call for a scaled bar or picture graph.
• The STEM project "Antique Calculator" includes errors with the intent of 3.NBT.A.1 about rounding.
• Teacher edition page 517 does not connect the labeled 3.G.A to 3.NF work.
• Standards in the series are taught overwhelmingly in isolation, with insufficient evidence that supporting standards enhance the teaching of major standards.

The instructional materials reviewed for Grade 3 do not meet expectations for viability of content coverage for one school year.

• A large portion of Grade 3 lessons should align with 3.NF as it is considered major work.
• Between the three resources, 15 lessons are labeled as 3.NF out of 68, which is 22% of the work.
• Beyond that, not all of these lessons are fully or appropriately aligned to 3.NF and do not fully allow for students to partition shapes, (e.g., tape diagrams, page 65 in ART resource).
• Work of partitioning from Grades 1 and 2 in their geometry domains are coherently connected and build on in the 3.NF lessons.
• While lessons could be each be repeated multiple times, the amount of content for instruction is limited and would not fulfill a typical instruction for a normal school year.

The instructional materials for Grade 3 do not meet the expectation for consistency with progressions. The review team did not find that the materials were consistent with the progressions in the standards as evidenced by:

• Denominators outside of scope of grade are scattered throughout the teacher edition (pages 283-350) but are not labeled.
• In the 3.OA.B.5 lessons in the teacher edition (pages 132-151), it does not need to be explicit of the properties in terms and vocabulary but should have more about application and the progression to two-step word problems, which are not evidenced here.
• Connections between skip counting and groups with area representations are not evident in any lessons in teacher edition pages 84-151.
• The teacher edition lesson on page 530 is more about attribute of shape then partitioning units. Symmetry, a Grade 4 standard, is addressed as well.
• Other examples are on teacher edition pages 283, 313, 350, 383, 428, 535, 538, and 557.

In addition, above grade-level work is not identified. There are no references to the progression documents. Due to the low amount of grade-level work and the nature of student exercises, the depth of student work is limited. There is limited work with grade-level problems for students. Materials are not consistent with CCSSM intent and lack use of equal groups and arrays. Standards for Mathematical Practice are not aligned throughout lessons and instead are provided their own set of activities at the end of the book and in the STEM lessons. Neither of them are connected thoughtfully to the work, but presented as blanket problem-solving tools.

Finally, connections between concepts are not clearly articulated for teachers. Although standards and objectives are listed for each lesson, they do not always cohesively connect. For example, the classroom activity on pages 79-83 show one picture of measurements broken up and then asks students to complete word problems such as "How many feet are there in 3 yards? Write your equation here. Which is the right answer? Put a checkmark in the correct box." This does not ask students to demonstrate their thinking through drawings or written/verbal explanations for how they got to the answer. The standard 3.OA.A.3 requires students to use multiple examples to demonstrate learning rather than just writing the equation.

The instructional materials reviewed do not meet the expectations for this indicator. Learning objectives are written and either address learning at the individual standard level, or simply restate the cluster. Examples can be found in ART on pages 118 and 167; the STEM project "Tetrahedron Kites" on page 44; and the STEM project "Geometric Design" on page 105.

Each lesson is taught in isolation, as a standard or a cluster of standards within the same domain. No evidence of lessons/activities where standards across domains are made. For example lessons for 3.MD.B do not follow the intent of the standard and cluster, they include pie graphs (not standard) and include graphs that are not scaled. Lessons provided for 3.G are not grade-level material or do not follow the intent of the standards.