Pine-Richland presents "math lite" program review, recommends Standards for Mathematical Practice across K–12

Pine‑Richland School District trustees and administrators on May 18 reviewed an "in‑depth program review (math lite)" that recommends centering instruction on the eight Standards for Mathematical Practice across kindergarten through 12th grade and embedding high‑cognitive tasks in the written curriculum.

The presentation, provided to the district's Academic Achievement Governance Committee, said the light review was the result of a yearlong process involving about 40–50 teachers and administrators who completed webinars, professional learning and classroom walkthroughs. "We have administrators from various buildings, teachers," one presenter said, describing cross‑district collaboration that generated practical classroom recommendations.

The report’s first recommendation links the district vision and philosophy to the SMPs, describing them as "habits of thinking that mathematicians utilize to attack problems, to understand how to solve them, and to persevere," and urging teachers to balance foundational fluency with opportunities for reasoning and modeling. Presenters emphasized that the approach is not a return to so‑called "new math" or pure rote work; instead, lessons should include a brief discovery or exploration, followed by explicit labeling of academic vocabulary and practice of the skill.

Elementary and secondary classroom examples illustrated the approach. Alina Clow, who said "I teach kindergarten through third grade gifted and talented, and first through third grade math enrichment," described a kindergarten task asking pupils "How can you show the number 5?" as a low‑floor, high‑ceiling problem that lets every child contribute while providing extension for higher achievers. John Petrasinski, identified in the transcript as an eighth‑grade algebra and geometry teacher, described a hands‑on Pythagorean activity in which students used varying lengths of wood to determine whether a triangle could be formed and then derived the theorem themselves: "Can you make a triangle from the lengths that you were given?" he asked, using exploration to lead to formalization.

High school teacher Jim Bickler said he used nontechnical anchors ("twins, siblings, and strangers") to lower barriers to participation; he reported that several students later used that language on unit assessments. Presenters said these concrete routines—anchor charts, sentence frames like "I noticed/I wonder," think time, partner discussion and structured rephrasing—help students build vocabulary and the mathematics needed for problem solving.

On assessments, staff listed formative tools and diagnostics the district currently uses, including benchmark assessments referred to as Firefly and the STAR diagnostic, and recommended rubrics and common assessment practice to inform instruction, not only gradebooks. The presenters suggested tightening grading and course expectations horizontally (across teachers) and vertically (across grade levels and course pathways) so families can make informed course selections.

The review also called for compiling strong, high‑cognitive tasks into a shared curriculum resource so teachers can borrow proven lessons rather than recreate them. Elementary principal Jenna Rucker described K–6 pathway options (current, compact, extended) and said the district will continue using MTSS to determine tiers of support and scheduling to meet student needs. Staff noted three secondary "pockets" of students—those in Concepts of Math, students who attend Beatty and need lab supports, and "high flyers" who exhaust available advanced coursework—and discussed possible scheduling or course additions to address each group.

District presenters said the recommendations are not contingent on new spending but on shifting and using existing resources differently; a timeline included in the handout maps steps and quarterly progress updates over the next three years. During board Q&A, members asked whether classroom materials would come from external libraries or be developed internally; presenters said it would be a mix of compiling and sharing successful practices identified during walkthroughs and department meetings.

The committee did not take formal votes at the session. The chair closed the meeting after noting there were no public speakers.

What’s next: the district placed the review’s suggested steps on a three‑year timeline and intends to provide quarterly updates to the board as implementation proceeds.