The instructional materials reviewed for Grade 5 do not meet expectations for assessment. The materials assess statistical distributions with questions that align to standards from 6.SP.A, “Develop understanding of statistical variability”, and 6.SP.B, “Summarize and describe distributions.”. There are also many other sessions in the materials that would need to be modified or omitted because of their alignment to above, grade-level standards. For this indicator, all of the identified assessments and end-of-unit assessments for the nine units were reviewed. Units and sessions accompanying above grade-level assessment items are noted in the following list.

• In unit 9, the end-of-unit assessment expects students to: compare sets of data using the shape and spread of the data; draw conclusions based on data; and use operations on fractions to solve problems involving information given in line plots. The scoring rubric indicates that in order to meet expectations, students are to recognize statistical distributions including range, median, mode, and outliers. These expectations align to standards within 6.SP. According to Table 2 on page 9 of the K–8 Publishers’ Criteria for the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics, assessment of statistical distributions should not occur before Grade 6.
• The end-of-unit assessment for unit 4 expects students to use fraction-percent equivalents to solve problems about the percentage of a quantity and order fractions with like and unlike denominators. Expectations on fraction-percent equivalents align to 6.RP.A.3.C. , “Find a percent of a quantity as a rate per 100 (e.g. 30% of a quantity means 30/100 times the quantity); solve problems involving finding the whole, given a part and the percent.” There are nine sessions that align to the expectation on percentages, and these nine sessions could be omitted without affecting the structure of the materials.
• The end-of-unit assessment for unit 6 expects student to: order decimals and justify their order through reasoning about decimal representations, equivalents, and relationships and add decimals to the thousandths through reasoning about place value, equivalents, and representations. The scoring rubric on page 136 indicates that students must be able to add decimals (to the thousandths) in order to be proficient. There is no grid provided, and student exemplars presented all involve actually adding the decimals rather than completing grids. These expectations go beyond 5.NBT.A.3.Bb, “Compare two decimals to thousandths based on meanings of the digits in each place, using >, =, and < symbols to record the results of comparisons,” and 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.”. There are 13 sessions that are aligned to the beyond grade-level expectations, and the lessons should not be omitted because that would affect the underlying structure of the materials for the unit.
• The end-of-unit assessment for unit 8 expects students to: use tables and graphs to represent the relationship between two variables; use tables and graphs to compare two situations with a constant rate of change; and use symbolic notation to represent the value of one variable in terms of another variable in situations with constant rates of change. The scoring rubric on page 126 indicates that students must be able to write an expression to represent the value of one variable in terms of another variable. These expectations extend beyond 5.OA.B.3 to more closely align with 6.EE.C.9. , “Use variables to represent two quantities in a real-world problem that change in relationship to one another; write an equation to express one quantity, thought of as the dependent variable, in terms of the other quantity, thought of as the independent variable. Analyze the relationship between the dependent and independent variables using graphs and tables, and relate these to the equation.” There are seven sessions that align to these expectations, and omission, or modification of, these seven sessions would not significantly impact the underlying structure of the materials.

*Evidence updated 10/27/15

The instructional materials reviewed for Grade 5 do not meet expectations for focus. There are 161 sessions between assessments and lessons in the materials. While 117 of the lessons are labeled as aligned to the major work with a percentage of 72% based on the labeled alignments from the publisher, there are many instances where the actual work in the lessons is not accurately aligned to the standard as marked. Examples include:

• In unit 2, lesson 1.1 has work with nets, a Grade 6 standard.
• In unit 2, lesson 2.3 has students measuring cubic units in their classroom. There is no way to guarantee that these will be whole number values when working with volume and therefore is above the scope of Grade 5.
• In unit 7, lesson 1.1 and 1.3 are both labeled as 5.NF.A.2 but do not address word problems involving +/- of the same whole.
• Unit 4, session 1.1 is labeled as aligned to 5.NF.A.1, but goes beyond the scope of that standard into percent work and portions of a set and a whole. This is not aligned to 5.NF.A.1 but rather to 6.RP.
• In unit 4, 12 lessons are labeled solely to a math practice, and diminish focus on the major work of the grade.
• Unit 5 has seven lessons that are labeled solely to a math practice and not a content standard in the grade. This lack of alignment interferes with a focus on the major work of the grade.

Instructional materials reviewed for Grade 5 do not meet expectations for coherence because the content in the materials does not support focus and coherence. Overall, the review team concluded that there were very few lessons that had supporting/additional clusters to support the major work. For example:

• In unit 9, lessons 1.1-1.4 are labeled as 5.MD.B.2, but the data measurements are whole numbers so there a misalignment with the standard. These do not support the work of 5.NF.A.
• Unit 8, lessons 1.1-1.3 and 2.5-2.6 examined for 5.OA.B.3 with connections to 5.NBT fluency unearthed misalignments with constant rate and doubling patterns that are beyond the grasp of Grade 5, diminishing the coherence between additional/supporting and major work at the grade. These lessons were also labeled as connected to 5.G.A which does not appropriately align to the coordinate system work of the grade.
• Content aligned to a math practice, rather than a content standard, in units 4 and 6, do not support connections within the grade level content.

The instructional materials reviewed for Grade 5 do not meet expectations for consistency with the progressions. The materials do not develop according to the progressions, nor do they give students extensive work with grade-level problems. In addition, while there are teacher notes in the "Looking Back" section of each unit, there is not explicit connection to specific standards addressed in prior grades. For example:

• This grade includes 19 lessons that are only aligned to the mathematical practices. This is a red flag that the lessons do not develop with a grade-by-grade progression because the material is not labeled as aligned to any grade-level work. These lessons are in Investigations 1-3 in unit 4 and Investigation 2 in unit 5.
• Unit 4 includes 11 lessons that are misaligned and teach percent, a Grade 6 standard.
• Within any standard, there are no examples of a two-step story problem.
• The domain 5NF, which is a major work, is greatly under-represented in this series. It is taught piecemeal across units 4-6, and in two new CCSM-aligned lessons in unit 9. These are aligned to 5NF.6 as are four new CCSSM lessons in unit 4. Six lessons on multiplication of fractions and mixed numbers does not support the consistent progression of the standards.
• There are no instances when CCSSM from earlier grades are labeled in the materials.