LANGUAGE! Live offers more for struggling readers than any other product. Proven foundational and advanced reading intervention. Peer-to-peer instruction. Literacy brain science. A captivating modern, digital platform for grades 5–12. All
in one affordable solution. More is possible
Literacy solutions guided by the Science of Reading pedagogy, the Structured Literacy approach, and explicit teaching of sound-letter relationships for effective reading instruction.
Grades K-5 blended literacy intervention
Grades K-5 online reading practice
Grades 4-12 print literacy program
Grades K-12 writing program
Grades 4-12 literacy intervention
TransMath® Third Edition is a comprehensive math intervention curriculum that targets middle and high school students who lack the foundational skills necessary for entry into algebra and/or who are two or more years below grade level in
A targeted math intervention program for struggling students in grades 2–8 that provides additional opportunities to master critical math concepts and skills.
Empowers students in grades K–8 to master math content at their own pace in a motivating online environment.
Inside Algebra engages at-risk students in grades 8–12 through explicit, conceptually based instruction to ensure mastery of algebraic skills.
Developed by renowned literacy experts Dr. Louisa Moats and Dr. Carol Tolman,
LETRS® is a flexible literacy professional development solution for preK–5 educators. LETRS earned the International Dyslexia Association's Accreditation and provides teachers with the skills they need to master the fundamentals
of reading instruction—phonological awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, comprehension, writing, and language.
NUMBERS is an interactive, hands-on mathematics professional development offering for elementary and middle school math teachers.
Best Behavior Features Elements to Create a Happy, Healthy School Environment
Look to ClearSight to measure student mastery of state standards with items previously used on state high-stakes assessments. ClearSight Interim and Checkpoint Assessments include multiple forms of tests for grades K–high school.
Reliable, Research-Based Assessment Solutions to Support Literacy and Math
Assess essential pre-literacy and oral language skills needed for kindergarten.
Enhance early reading success and identify students experiencing difficulty acquiring foundational literacy skills.
A universal screening and progress monitoring assessment that measures the acquisition of content-area literacy skills for 7th and 8th grade students.
A companion tool for use with Acadience Reading K–6 to determine instructional level and progress monitoring.
Assess critical reading skills for students in grades K–6 and older students with very low skills.
Predict early mathematics success and identify students experiencing difficulty acquiring foundational math skills.
Give educators a fast and accurate way to enter results online and receive a variety of reports that facilitate instructional decision making.
A brief assessment that can be used with Acadience Reading K–6 to screen students for reading difficulties such as dyslexia.
A new, online touch-enabled test administration and data system that allows educators to assess students and immediately see results, providing robust reporting at the student, class, school, and district levels.
Unparalleled support for our educator partners
We work with schools and districts to customize an implementation and ongoing support plan.
Grades 5-12 blended literacy intervention
Flexible literacy professional development solution for preK–12 educators.
Focused on engaging students with age-appropriate instruction and content that supports and enhances instruction.
Reading intervention for grades K–5.
At Voyager Sopris Learning®, our mission is to work with educators to help them meet and surpass their goals for student achievement.
Step Up to Writing®
by John Woodward on May 3, 2018
Curriculum’s role in the classroom, like so many educational trends, has followed a pendulum swing for decades.
Beginning in the 1960s, there was an attempt to “teacher proof” curriculum so the materials would be consistently implemented from one classroom to the next. Yet, research has shown teachers deviate from even the most detailed, “script-based” curriculum for a range of reasons.
Some teachers instinctively bristle at the constraints of these materials. Others vary from the prescribed routines because of classroom logistics. Most recently, standards have pushed students to higher levels of communication and problem solving. Detailed scripts cannot program how students are supposed to respond to questions like, “Is there another way you can show me why 3/8 is smaller than 3/5 using manipulatives?” The notion that well-taught students might use number lines, Cuisinaire rods, or pattern blocks in unexpected ways to answer this question goes against a highly prescriptive curriculum. More teacher judgment based on content and teaching or pedagogical knowledge is needed for this kind of instruction.
The standards movement in the 1990s impelled teachers to move away from the curriculum as the mechanism for transforming classroom instruction. Detailed observations and self-reports of expert teachers, as well as interest at the time in Asian mathematics instruction (where curricular materials are outweighed by carefully guided, teacher instruction), led to a major emphasis on teacher content and pedagogical knowledge. Teacher-driven practices, rather than the virtues of a detailed, prescriptive curriculum, came into vogue. And, as a consequence, the need for extensive professional development—as part of teacher preparation programs as well as considerable, ongoing inservice education—became an unavoidable byproduct.
However, we are now at a point where the limits of teacher-driven practices have become apparent. New teachers with sufficient levels of math content preparation are harder to find than before. Elementary teachers still tend to receive more preservice preparation in reading than in math. Those who serve struggling and special education students typically lack the kind of background needed to teach today’s mathematics. For these reasons, and more, the pendulum between curriculum and teacher-driven practices is moving again.
A middle ground, where curriculum is more “user friendly” to novice teachers and their students, has begun to appear in the science education literature. Elizabeth Davis and her colleagues have articulated what they call an, “educative curriculum.1” Their approach, which also draws extensively on work in mathematics education, acknowledges that teachers need to adapt curriculum to their instructional conditions. In this regard, curriculum should be designed to speak to teachers and not through them. Most of all, these materials need to be designed so teachers can and should learn about a topic and its related concepts with their students.
An educative curriculum allows topics to develop in complexity over time. In this way, teachers are not overwhelmed from the beginning with complex information, nor are they asked to push students in overly demanding classroom activities. Instead, teachers and their students move gradually into in high-level tasks. There is increasing support for posing problems and conducting classroom discussions. All of this is structured into the curriculum and the design of text materials.
In mathematics, a judicious use of visual representations and manipulatives can significantly help teachers and students understand key concepts. The best use of these tools is when they are described in the textbook in a way that complements their use in the classroom. This also suggests that textbook explanations are clear and concise. While this recommendation may seem obvious, far too many math textbooks are structured around extremes. The traditional format is two or three procedural examples before a bank of practice problems. A more contemporary or “reform” approach is to present an elaborate description that sets the stage for extended problem solving. A clear presentation of the key concepts behind a topic like fractions—equal shares, part-to-whole relationships, equivalence, and magnitude—is missing. Teacher guides can augment how educators learn the major concepts behind a topic by elaborating on the big ideas that guide a unit or chapter.
There also are emerging, technology-based tools for assisting teachers new to today’s mathematics. One of the more intriguing suggestions that Davis and her colleagues describe in their work is the teacher narrative. Online videos present a teacher describing how he or she implemented a lesson (or unit of instruction). These accounts can include what the teacher learned and how he or she adapted instruction for students. Also, brief technology-based animations of concepts along with clear explanations can be used inside and outside the classroom. These animations initially free teachers from the uncertainty of explaining a concept like regrouping as it appears in the context of long division.
A final component of educative materials is the inclusion of student work, particularly when it involves performance assessments. Far too often, a math unit ends with computational tests. These are fine, but an inherently limited form of assessment. A better measure of communication and problem solving can be found in performance assessments. Including rubrics and samples of student work that show a range of responses to problems can help teachers and students see what an optimal response to a challenging problem should look like.
By starting with a curricular approach that “speaks to and not through” teachers, further professional development is more contained and a logical extension of the curriculum. After all, one of the central problems of the teacher-driven phase of math education was that how much content knowledge and related pedagogical knowledge a teacher needed to know was seemingly unlimited. District budgets simply do not allow for this kind of professional development support. Thus, more elementary teachers, robust professional development in numbers and operations, fractions, and geometry would be a sensible and contained complement to an educative curriculum.
To be sure, the educative curricular approach will have its problems. However, it is a reasonable solution to what is one of the major challenges in math education now and in the near future—how we substantively assist teachers who are new to (or uncomfortable with) the mathematics we must teach in today’s classrooms.
Helping teachers build mathematics connections and problem-solving skills is key to student success. You can listen to Dr. John Woodward's webinar, "Improving Math Instruction: Making the Complex Understandable for Teachers and Students" here.
NUMBERS is an interactive, hands-on mathematics professional development offering for elementary and middle school math teachers. Research-validated findings have been integrated into the program along with numerous strategies and best practices to meet the expectations of rigorous state standards.
1Davis, E., & Krajcik, J. (2005). Designing educative curriculum materials to promote teacher learning. Educational Researcher, 34(3), 3-14.
1Davis, E., Palincsar, A., Arias, A., Bismack, A., Marulis, A., & Iwashyna, S. (2014). Designing educative curriculum materials: A theoretically and empirically driven process. Harvard Educational Review, 84 (1), 24-52.
Add your email here to sign up for EDVIEW 360 blogs, webinars, and podcasts. We'll send you an email when new posts and episodes are published.