Math Out of the Box™ distinguishes itself from other inquiry-base math programs in the areas of differentiated instruction, professional development, curriculum design, transferability, material support, and community support.

Existing Programs	Math Out of the Box™
Differentiated Instruction
Achievement gaps continue to be a critical issue in STEM education. Even in districts that have adopted reform curricula, achievement gaps among subgroups of students remain (BEST, 2004). This evidence suggests that current reform programs are not providing sufficient instructional support to enable teachers to differentiate instruction so that the learning needs of diverse groups of students are adequately met.	To close achievement gaps, instructional practice must allow for prior learning experiences, diverse learning styles, and a range of learning abilities (BEST, 2004). Lesson elements that allow students to represent and communicate their learning in a variety of ways leads to a broader shared understanding of mathematical ideas, along with individual accountability and connections to life outside of the mathematics classroom. These differentiated instructional elements, designed into every lesson, provide an accessible structure for teachers in meeting the needs of diverse groups of learners. Narrowing of achievement gaps in data from field tests provide evidence that all participating student subgroups benefited from involvement in the program.
Professional Development
The primary curriculum implementers, classroom teachers, often lack the content knowledge and personal learning experiences to support fidelity of implementation (e.g., Ball, 1996; NCTM, 2000; NCMST, 2000; NRC, 2001). Consequently, intensive, long-term professional development, generally external to the daily work of the teacher, is required to ensure the program is properly implemented and meets the learning needs of students.	The primary environment in which teacher learning occurs is generally acknowledged and supported in the literature to be situated in the day to day practice of teaching (Ball, 1993, Cobb, Wood, Yackel, 1990; Knapp & Peterson, 1995; Lortie, 1975; Thompson, 1992). Rather than professional development being external to the implementation process, the developers for this project envision a program of professional development that is embedded in the process of implementation. This vision is being realized through a program of professional development that is designed in parallel with the student curriculum materials. Materials and resources are designed not only to support professional development during formal events, but also during the daily routines and practices of the teacher, so that opportunities for teachers to learn occur throughout the implementation process.
Curriculum Design
Reform curriculum programs frequently require radical changes in the school culture (Smith, 2001). These reform programs do not provide flexible, progressive implementation alternatives that can be staggered over time. Instead, in schools and districts where these programs are implemented, teachers, students, and families are immersed into the process, having to adjust to the cultural changes and learn the new materials simultaneously. The lack of flexible, gradual implementation alternatives for these programs creates barriers that hinder successful implementation. Those reform curricula that do allow for flexibility in implementation, consistently lack a comprehensive scope and sequence for meeting national content standards at all grade levels.	The need for a flexible, yet comprehensive inquiry-based mathematics program guided developers in designing four distinct, but interrelated curriculum content strands. This unique design allows not only for flexibility of implementation in terms of content needs, but also for flexibility in professional development in terms of community preparedness for implementing the program. Individual strands, focusing on specific content areas allow for flexible, tailored implementation, in which grade level modules may be used to supplement or fill gaps in existing curriculum programs. This flexibility enables schools to stage implementation progressively over time to meet the specific strengths and/or challenges of the learning environment. Further, the four content strands, when fully implemented over time, will provide a coherent and comprehensive mathematics program that fully meets national standards in the discipline at all grade levels.
Transferability
Some of the more innovative reform programs use games, conventions, representations, and language that are unique to the program. While such games and conventions may support students’ learning, they also create problems of transfer as students carry these conventions, representations, and language to other mathematics programs. A common complaint among educators and parents concerns students transferring in or out of innovative standards-based programs. These students often require longer periods of transition before they can fully engage in all learning opportunities. And more significantly, non-standard representations, conventions, and language do not foster, and may actually interfere with, continued development of foundational ideas that are important to STEM programs of advanced study (BEST, 2004).	The developers of this curriculum, in the College of Engineering and Science at Clemson University, recognize that K-5 mathematics programs are foundational to STEM education. As a result, they are cognizant of and attentive to mathematical language, representations, and conventions that are both accurate and developmentally appropriate. Lessons are written by practicing K-5 classroom teachers to ensure developmental appropriateness. Lessons are reviewed by STEM educators for mathematical accuracy and STEM foundational development. Precise mathematical language and standard mathematical representations and conventions are developed through lesson investigations and reinforced through written assignments. The curriculum fosters STEM development to prepare students for more challenging STEM courses as they advance through and beyond high school.
Material Support
Standards-based curriculum programs are designed to promote environments rich in hands-on learning opportunities (NCTM, 2000). However, the lessons are often designed so that the physical materials are optional elements of implementation. Games, manipulatives, and other resources that are suggested for use in lessons are sometimes supplementary to the program. These materials must be purchased separately, and someone must be responsible for determining which materials to purchase for each grade level. This process is time consuming and expensive and it is common for thousands of dollars to be spent in purchasing never-opened manipulatives because their use is not thought integral to lessons.	Materials, manipulatives, and models provide physical means by which students can both develop and demonstrate knowledge (Van de Walle, 2004). Each curriculum module includes a teacher’s manual and a kit of physical materials needed to effectively teach the lessons to a class of 30 students. For the developers, including the materials as part of the curriculum was a foundational decision based on equity. With lessons designed for hands-on engagement, including the materials ensures that all students have equal access to mathematically meaningful hands-on experiences. Lessons are designed so that students have opportunities to both explore and demonstrate mathematical ideas using concrete materials. The instructional materials included in the lessons are integral to the learning experience.
Community Support
While information to inform the larger community about new curriculum programs is generally provided in most standards-based programs, little thought is given on how to include and educate the larger community in supporting and contributing to the implementation process. Community support, both within and outside the school, are essential to successful implementation of new programs (NSF, 2000).	The developers for this curriculum program are particularly well suited to include and educate community stakeholders in the process of curriculum implementation. They have been involved with reform efforts at local, state, and national levels in mathematics and science for over a decade. The development team brings a wealth of resources, community connections, and strategies for informing and educating community stakeholders. As part of the professional development component outlined in this proposal, resources will be developed with the explicit purpose of informing, educating, and including community stakeholders in the curriculum implementation process. Expectations and desired outcomes for children and their caregivers will be defined. Just as learners must be actively engaged in the process of learning, so too must community stakeholders be actively engaged in the process of .

Citations

Ball, D.L. (1993), With an eye on the mathematical horizon: Dilemmas of teaching elementary school mathematics, Elementary School Journal, 93(4), 373-397.

Ball, D.L. (1996), Teacher learning and the mathematics reforms: What we think we know and what we need to learn, Phi Delta Kappan, 77, 500-508.

BEST, (2004), Building Engineering and Science Talent. What It Takes: Pre-K-12 Design Principles to Broaden Participation in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics, San Diego, CA.

Cobb, P., Wood, T., and Yackel, E. (1990), Classrooms as learning environments for teachers and researchers, in R.B. Davis, C.A. Maher, and N. Noddings (Eds.), Constructivist Views of the Teaching and Learning of Mathematics, Journal for Research in Mathematics Education Monograph, No. 44, pp. 125-146, National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Reston, VA.

Knapp, N.F. and Peterson, P.L. (1995), Teachers’ interpretation of ‘CGI’ after four years: Meanings and practices. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 26, 40-65.

Lortie, D.C. (1975), Schoolteacher: A sociological study, University of Chicago Press.

NCMST, (2000), Before it’s too late: A report to the nation from the National Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching for the 21^st Century, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC.

NCTM, (2000), Principals and Standards of School Mathematics, National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Reston, VA.

NRC, (2001), Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics, J. Kilpatrick, J. Swafford, and B. Findell (Eds.), Mathematics Learning Study Committee, Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington, DC.

NSF (2000), Final report on the evaluation of the National Science Foundation’s instructional materials development program, Directorate for Education and Human Resources, Division of Research, Evaluation, and Communication.

Thompson, A. (1992), Teachers’ beliefs and conceptions: A synthesis of the research, in D.A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning: A Project of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (pp.127-146), MacMillan, NY.

Smith, M.S. (2001), Practice-based professional development for teachers of mathematics, National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Reston, VA.

Van de Walle, J. (2004), Elementary and middle school mathematics: Teaching developmentally, 5^th Edition, Pearson Education, Boston.