Summary of Alignment & Usability: Stepping Stones, First Edition | Math
The version reviewed was the first edition. ORIGO Stepping Stones 2.0 will be reviewed in the future.
The instructional materials reviewed for Grades K-2 vary in alignment scoring. Grades 1 and 2 assess topics that are beyond each grade level and do not spend a majority of time on the major work of the grade level. There are some examples of coherence within these two grade levels and some examples of coursework following the progressions of learning throughout the grade levels. In Grade K, the materials are found to be focused on the major work of the grade level, and they partially meet the criterion for being coherent and consistent with the standards. This grade was reviewed for rigor and MPs. The balance of the three aspects of rigor meets expectations for Grade K, but the materials only partially meet expectations for each individual aspect of rigor. Grade K materials incorporate vocabulary in a meaningful way, but MP 3 is not fully attended to for the teacher nor for the students.
KindergartenView Full Report
1st GradeView Full Report
2nd GradeView Full Report
The instructional materials reviewed for Grades 3-5 vary in alignment scoring. All three grade levels are found to focus on the major clusters of the grade level. The materials include a few missed opportunities to make connections between supporting work and major work at each grade level, but for Grades 3 and 4, expectations are met for all other indicators in coherence. In Grade 5, however, expectations are not met overall for coherence. Grades 3-5 were reviewed for rigor and the MPs. In Grade 3, the materials meet the expectations for attending to procedural skill and fluency as well as applications, but Grades 4 and 5 partially meet the expectations for these two aspects of rigor. All three grade levels partially meet the expectations for conceptual understanding and treating the three aspects of rigor with balance. For the MPs, Grades 3-5 identified the MPs at each grade level. They did not meet expectations, though, for helping students and teachers construct viable arguments and critique the reasoning of others nor did the materials attend to the specialized language of mathematics.