I am in the process of comparing and summarizing differences between the 2nd edition and EM3. There are many improvements, but I will focus on the assessment component, but first: Regarding a few of the other questions asked on the listserve, but not specific to assessment: Yes, the Instructional Plan (3 parts) is still intact. Lessons contain Math Message, Mental Math & Reflexes, Part 1 Teaching the Lesson, Part 2 Ongoing Learning and Practice, and Part 3 Differentiation Options. The distributed practice approach and the development of skills over time, or spiral, are still core to the instructional design. A quick list of what else is new: Differentiation Handbook (it's awesome) Multi-Lingual Resource (haven't seen it yet) Differentiation Options include Readiness, Enrichment, ELL Support, Extra Practice Grades 1 & 2 have a Student Reference Book Grades 4-6 have a 5-Minute Math booklet Now for the ASSESSMENT stuff. In EM3, Learning Goals are no longer referred to as Beginning, Developing, and Secure. Instead, assessment opportunities are either "Recognizing Student Achievement" (which I would consider fair to grade) or "Informing Instruction" (which is what the title implies). The last lesson of each unit is called Progress Check - In earlier editions, the Checking Progress pages had problems addressing B, D, and S learning goals mixed throughout the written assessment. In EM3, the Written Assessment clearly separates Recognizing Student Achievement problems ( in Part A) from the Informing Instruction problems (in Part B). The Oral and Slate Assessments are still included as in earlier editions. A new piece, Open Response has been added. The Open Response items require students to apply skills and concepts from the unit to solve a multi-step problem. The Assessment Handbook provides rubrics and student samples of the Open Response. The other lessons in each unit contain plenty of assessment notations - On-going assessment opportunities are clearly marked throughout each unit, and a big red star is used in the Teacher Lesson Guide to identify specific Mental Math and Reflexes, Math Messages, Journal Pages, and even Math Boxes that could be used for either Achievement or Informing. There are also many Self Assessment items in EM3 The assessment section of the Unit Organizer is very easy to read. I noticed -more Portfolio Opportunities -Content assessed includes strand citation (Example: Grade 5, Lesson 9-6 (not 9.6!) Content Assessed is "Write both the equation and word sentence for the area formulas for triangles and parallelograms. [Measurement and Reference Frames Goal 2]") -Goals within each strand are organized differently, so it will be easier to track progress as a concept becomes more complex. The Assessment Handbook is much more extensive. It contains a section of grade level goals for K-6 organized by Content Strand and Program Goal. The masters for each unit's Self Assessment, Written Assessment, and Open Response are in the Assessment Handbook. The Self Assessment lists unit goals in kid friendly, mathematical language with 3 response options: "I can do this on my own and explain how to do it.", "I can do this on my own.", and "I can do this if I get help or look at an example." The Class Checklist is now 2 pages; one page for noting a learning goal for each and every lesson, and another for noting Oral/Slate, and Written Part A and Written Part B. The suggested key for the formative assessments is A = adequate progress, N = not adequate progress, N/A = not assessed. The Individual Profile of Progress is also two pages; one with a line for each lesson's learning goal (Recognizing Student Achievement) and the other for the Progess Check (Oral/Slate, Written A, Written B). There will be an optional full size Answer Key Student Journal that would be so much easier to read than the answer keys in the margin of the Lesson Guides. There is also an electronic assessment system option, but I am not planning to investigate it at this time. Clearly, there are many improvements in EM3's assessment support. If any one has noted other differences in assessment, I would love to get them from you! I have looked at some differences in the lessons, starting with grade 5, but that is a bigger task...if anyone else has it done, please share! I am piloting the 3rd edition in my third grade classroom. I've enjoyed working with it and getting to know the changes. Content has stayed basically the same, but this version is more teacher friendly. Assessment has been the biggest change and I love it! There is no longer B, D, S and they have made it easier by including at least one opportunity for assessment in each lesson. The part 3 has also been beefed up. There are great readiness activities which I've been using for some students to preview the lesson. The second edition still is great, but new changes to the 3rd edition make it easier for the teacher. The 2007 edition assessments are much better. They have an open response section, and section for the children self asses. This is in addition to the skills the children need to have at the end of each unit. I think the new version is very teacher friendly. The changes were not great, but the ones that were made really made a positive difference. Another change I have found is that Math Boxes at ALL levels are paired. In earlier editions this was true for fourth and fifth grade but in the third edition all grades have paired math boxes. My district is = piloting the third edition and I agree with Linda's observations. I will add, the Open Response opportunities are fabulous... the assessment handbook gives great ideas for implementing these in the classroom and the samples of student responses are a great tool! We are enjoying the added features as well as the updates. One of the most important things to know is that the third edition of Everyday Mathematics remains true to the philosophy of the first and second editions. And, in alignment with our development principles, the third edition incorporates the latest educational research as well asteacher feedback from the second edition. One area of change that some people have asked about concerns B, D, and S. In order to better explain some of the changes surrounding B, D, and S, I'd like to backtrack a bit and discuss the evolution of EM's learning goals. Students using Everyday Mathematics are expected to master a variety of mathematical skills and concepts, but not the first time they are encountered. When Everyday Mathematics was first published beginning in the 1980s, the beginning, developing, and secure labels did not exist. Feedback from users of the first edition indicated that some teachers were uncomfortable moving through the curriculum ("trusting the spiral") because they didn't know where a particular skill or concept fell in terms of the curriculum. They weren't sure whether a lesson was a first exposure or a last chance for a particular skill or concept. The terms beginning, developing, and secure were introduced in an update of the first edition in order to help teachers feel more comfortable moving through the curriculum. These terms were then applied to the learning goals in the second edition. The main function of the beginning, developing, and secure labels in the second edition was to provide information about the curriculum's treatment of a topic. If a learning goal was marked as beginning (B) at a certain point in the curriculum, teachers were to understand that instruction at that point was an exposure to the skill or concept. Developing (D) indicated that the curriculum had provided prior treatment of the skill or concept, but further instruction would occur in subsequent lessons. If a learning goal was marked secure (S) at a certain point, the curriculum would provide additional opportunities to practice and apply the skill or concept, but lessons would no longer be devoted to it. A secondary function of the B, D, and S labels was to indicate individual students' levels of mastery of skills and concepts. These two separate uses of the same system of labels have led to problems. Feedback from users of the second edition challenged the authors to look more closely at the B, D, and S labels on learning goals. For example, teachers asked thought-provoking questions such as the following: * If a learning goal is labeled as beginning or developing at a certain point in the curriculum, then at what point does it become secure? * If a learning goal is labeled as developing in Unit 1, does that mean it is still considered developing at the end of the year? * How do the learning goals connect across the grade levels? * Why are there more secure learning goals at some grade levels than others? * If a child does not demonstrate proficiency with a secure learning goal in Unit 2, when will I have the opportunity to check back to see if progress has been made? * What should the majority of third graders (or students at any grade level) be able to do by the end of the year?=20 The third edition of Everyday Mathematics addresses these questions in part through the introduction of Program Goals and Grade-Level Goals. Program Goals are the threads that weave the curriculum together across grades. These goals are organized by content strand and are the same at all grade levels. The goals express the mathematical content that all children who study K-6 Everyday Mathematics are expected to master. The level of generality of our Program Goals is quite high which is appropriate for goals that span Grades K-6. They don't provide guidance at the level of specificity that teachers need at each grade level. The third edition, therefore, has another set of goals that clarify what the Program Goals mean for each grade level. There are about two dozen of these Grade-Level Goals for each grade, K-6. They are all linked to specific Program Goals. These Grade-Level Goals are guideposts along trajectories of learning that span multiple years. They clarify our expectations for mastery at each grade level. Everyday Mathematics is designed so that the vast majority of students will reach the Grade-Level Goals for a given grade upon completion of that grade. Students who meet the Grade-Level Goals will be well prepared to succeed in higher levels of mathematics. The primary function that the B, D, and S system served in the second edition, letting teachers know where they are in the curriculum's treatment of a topic, is met in several ways in the third edition. First, as outlined above, there is an explicit and well-articulated goal structure that spans all grades and provides detailed information about exactly what is to be mastered at each grade. Second, the Learning in Perspective tables found in every Unit Organizer and popular in the second edition, have been enhanced in the third edition. Third, the Teacher's Lesson Guide alerts teachers to lesson content that is being introduced for the first time through Links to the Future notes. These notes provide specific references to future Grade-Level Goals and help teachers understand introductory activities at their grade level in the context of the entire K-6 curriculum. Finally, the new grade-level specific Differentiation Handbooks include tables that show in which unit each Grade-Level Goal is taught and practiced within the grade. Similar tables also appear at the back of each Teacher's Lesson Guide. Unlike the Differentiation Handbook tables, these Teacher's Lesson Guide tables span several grade levels. The secondary function of B, D, and S in the second edition, as a rubric or scale for assessing students, is also met in several ways in the third edition. Every lesson, for example, now includes a Recognizing Student Achievement note, which identifies a task from the lesson, links that task to a specific Grade- Level Goal, and provides specific benchmarks teachers can use to judge whether students are making adequate progress toward meeting that goal. The Progress Checks in each assessment lesson have also been reorganized so that teachers can easily identify which items are assessing material students can fairly be held accountable for and which items should be used as formative or baseline assessment only. Each assessment lesson also includes an open-response item for which a task-specific rubric and annotated anchor papers are provided in the grade-level specific Assessment Handbooks. The labels B, D, and S are not part of the third edition of Everyday Mathematics, but the spirit and functions of B, D, and S live on in the Program Goals and Grade-Level Goals and in the structure and features of EM 3.0. The disappearance of these labels does not reflect a change in the Everyday Mathematics approach, but rather an attempt to make that approach easier to understand and implement.