My IB · PYP Math Playbook: What Fits, What Doesn’t

Last Friday my Year 4 group were timing themselves building paper bridges during a “How We Organize Ourselves” inquiry. The math wasn’t a worksheet; it was measurement, averages, and simple data displays living inside a conversation about procedures. That’s PYP math at its best: concepts first, strands woven through authentic action, and students explaining strategies in their own language.

The fit problems I still see: “on-topic” sheets using closed, one-right-way questions; phrasing like “show your working” without room for different strategies; assessments that grade accuracy only, not reasoning or reflection. PYP asks for conceptual understanding (e.g., function as a big idea), ATL skills, and learner profile connections. If a resource treats data as tally-then-bar-chart every time, it misses the inquiry.

I now start with the central idea and lines of inquiry, then test a resource against them. If it can’t facilitate a provocation, a strategy share, and a reflection in one lesson, I pass. When I need quick inspiration, I browse community math pieces and refine from there using my unit goals, and I’ll often begin that hunt in the math library.

Week 6, my Grade 3s were exploring “How We Express Ourselves” through patterns in weaving. I tested a slick pattern sheet, then tossed it after a 90-second check: it said “use the method shown,” offered no reflection prompt, and used UK SATs-style marks. That’s not PYP.

Here are the checks I actually run: Does the task invite multiple strategies and ask students to justify? Are verbs PYP-fluent—tuning in, finding out, going further, taking action? Do success criteria fit “I can…” language tied to a strand and a key concept? Is assessment more than ticks—does it include reasoning, communication, and reflection? Is vocabulary development planned (sentence stems, word banks), especially for mixed-language groups? Finally, does the resource play nicely with a transdisciplinary context, or does it box math back into isolation?

If a resource passes those, I’ll pilot it with one table group, then scale. Sometimes I’ll generate a quick version of the task that better matches our unit language, then field-test it with an exit slip so I can tune the next day’s mini-lesson. You can spin up a draft like that in a couple of minutes here.

Tuesday with Year 5, during “Sharing the Planet,” I ran a math inquiry on fair shares with limited resources. The worked example was “Marwa’s Pizza Slices”: 3 pizzas shared among 5 friends, then 7 among 8. The goal wasn’t just answers; it was representing, justifying, and deciding what’s fair.

Here’s the plan I keep taped to my laptop:

• Objective (3 min): I can represent and compare fractions for fair sharing, and justify what’s fair using models.
• Starter – Provocation (7 min): Quick photo prompt: two unevenly cut pies at a picnic. Silent notice/wonder, then pair-share: “What does fair look like?”
• Main – Strategy Workshop (25 min): Groups choose tools (fraction strips, number line, arrays) to model 3÷5 and 7÷8. Capture two different representations and a written justification. I circulate, seed vocabulary (numerator, denominator, equivalent), and note strategies for the share-out.
• Formative check (7 min): Exit slip: Which is larger, 3/5 or 7/8? Show two models and a sentence defending your choice.
• Plenary – Congress (8 min): Share two contrasting strategies; class votes on clarity and fairness. Students self-assess against success criteria.

I post the exit slip and success criteria to ClassPods so I can skim who’s comparing by common denominators vs. benchmarks, then group accordingly. If you want to generate your own pack around this flow, you can start with a blank pack and tune it to your central idea.

On Wednesday I gave my Grade 2s a pattern hunt around the room and needed quick, clear criteria. This is the template I drop straight into books and adjust to the strand.

PYP Math Inquiry Rubric (stick in front of task)

• Conceptual understanding: Emerging (names steps), Developing (describes pattern/rule), Securing (generalizes rule beyond example), Extending (connects to other contexts/strands).
• Strategy and representation: Emerging (uses one model with prompts), Developing (chooses a model), Securing (chooses and explains two models), Extending (critiques models, suggests improvements).
• Mathematical language: Emerging (single words), Developing (labels parts), Securing (uses full sentences with vocabulary), Extending (uses precise terms and defines them).
• Reasoning and justification: Emerging (because it is), Developing (short reason), Securing (clear, evidence-backed reason), Extending (compares/contrasts strategies).
• Reflection/ATL: Emerging (what I did), Developing (what worked), Securing (what I’d change), Extending (action I’ll take next time).

Math Journal Page (copy text)
Today I explored…
My first strategy was…
A different way is…
I noticed… so I think…
New vocabulary I used…
Next action… If you prefer to generate a printable version that mirrors this wording, you can build a quick draft from a blank canvas.

My Grade 1s on Monday reminded me how language sits under math: a student solved beautifully with cubes, then froze when asked to explain. In a bilingual class, I plan supports before the provocation lands. I pair visuals with sentence stems, keep dual-language word banks on the table, and let students discuss in home language before recording in English. That small wait time boost saves a lot of blank stares.

Pacing-wise, I chunk inquiry into short loops: 6–8 minute bursts with a quick gallery walk so no one sits too long in productive struggle. For homework, I send home a “teach back” card—students explain today’s strategy to a family member and sketch it. For revision, we curate a class anchor of strategies so learners can choose tools, not just repeat steps.

I post stems and exit slips to ClassPods in both languages when possible, then use the responses to group for the next day. If you’re coordinating across grades, I’d price out how many packs and seats you actually need rather than guessing; the breakdown is clear, and you can do the math on rollout on the pricing page.