The Anchorage School District commissioned The Council of the Great City Schools to evaluate why the Every Day Math program is not fulfilling ASD’s dreams. In a voluminous report, the CGCS concluded that the school district has made some strides in Standards Based Assessment scores following the same students for several grades. There are many problems cited by the study and actions with which to improve the math curriculum. Recommended corrective action was to provide more professional development for teachers and assistance to parents, Parent University. It seems as if teachers cannot adequately teach to the curriculum and parents find it very difficult to help their kids with homework. This would appear to be a formula for failure for our kids. The study places overall responsibility for lack of progress in math on the ASD staff, principals and teachers.
The study breaks down SBA scores by ethnic/racial group in the District. It appears as if much of the lack of progress is in the minority groups and English Language Learners groups. The study goes into depth relating students on free/reduced price lunches (FRPL) to low math scores. Maybe students not on the FRPL get more nutritious meals from sack lunches and fast food franchises. There may be some correlation with parent involvement at the lower socio-economic levels. Maybe reverting to the more basic Saxon math program would help these parents do homework with their kids. It couldn’t hurt.
It seems as if there is little accountability in the District regarding monitoring, implementation and evaluation of EDM by the various players. The study states: “The evaluation system for principals is not connected to student achievement or meeting school goals. The evaluation system for teachers does not reference student performance on state assessments.” Then what are principal and teacher performance based upon if not student achievement? Clearly, we need to connect student achievement, as one metric, to teacher/principal performance. Otherwise, we cannot differentiate between the good and the bad.
One solution to the choice of EDM versus Saxon (or other more viable math programs) could be to allow the parents the choice of selecting the best fit for their child regarding school. Why can’t a parent choose a school which teachers a particular curriculum best suited for their child? Only the parent knows the best learning style and which math program would fit the child. The charter schools and alternative schools in the ASD mostly use the Saxon math program and their SBA scores exceed the other schools. Incidentally, why didn’t the study include the charter schools? Only the Alaska Native Charter School was included in the study.
Give the kids a chance…give them choice.
Thursday, June 30, 2011
School board should go beyond TERC math (MD)
(Terc & EDM programs pushed into schools with National Science Foundaiton grant money)
The Frederick County school board deserves credit for recognizing that TERC math was not serving our students well, and for selecting new textbooks that are clearly better than TERC.
Even more impressive is that the board is willing to listen to parents' concerns, investigate their merits and act in accordance with those findings.
When TERC materials were purchased by the previous board and instruction subsequently was altered to use those materials, parents' objections were generally disregarded by school officials.
We hope the positive changes that have occurred will continue, and give credit to the entire board and the leadership of board president Brad Young for moving the system forward.
It is in light of those positive developments that we offer three suggestions.
First, while the selected math programs are an improvement, the rigor of either Singapore math or Saxon math is still greater. The programs FCPS selected follow the Common Core standards. We recommend that FCPS consider using the world-class math standards produced by California, which many experts agree set a higher bar than the Common Core.
FCPS could continue with the textbooks it has selected, but would need to make adjustments to the instructional sequence those books provide to ensure students master the content that the best available standards expect.
Second, we recommend piloting several math programs that weren't selected. Selecting a textbook based on performance in our classrooms by using objective data is more reliable than selecting one based on the consensus opinion of a task force, no matter how well-chosen the members of that group may be.
By allowing objective evidence rather than beliefs or philosophy to drive decisions, programs that produce the desired outcomes rise to the top. We hope the board will consider piloting Singapore math, Saxon math and Connecting Math Concepts. Some of these vendors are so confident that their product will outperform others that they will provide their materials free or heavily discounted to school systems that conduct a valid pilot.
Third, we hope the board will continue re-examining both the curricular materials and the approaches schools are using in other subject areas. Of particular concern to us is the selection of a core comprehensive reading program.
FCPS continues to promote the use of the "balanced literacy" approach instead of an approach grounded in scientifically based reading research that has been shown to reach nearly every child.
It is the responsibility of the school system to select and provide teachers with programs that are proven to work. In addition to a research-based program, school systems must identify gaps in teacher knowledge regarding reading instruction and provide training to develop the understanding of the critical role of phonics and other essential components of scientifically based reading research.
We know that school board member Donna Crook has long advocated for improvements in reading, and hope that the rest of the board will join with her to address this issue. Our confidence in the board's ability to address this critical issue has never been higher, and we hope they choose to do so.
Tom Neumark, Point of Rocks
The writer is a founder of FrederickEducationReform.com.
The Frederick County school board deserves credit for recognizing that TERC math was not serving our students well, and for selecting new textbooks that are clearly better than TERC.
Even more impressive is that the board is willing to listen to parents' concerns, investigate their merits and act in accordance with those findings.
When TERC materials were purchased by the previous board and instruction subsequently was altered to use those materials, parents' objections were generally disregarded by school officials.
We hope the positive changes that have occurred will continue, and give credit to the entire board and the leadership of board president Brad Young for moving the system forward.
It is in light of those positive developments that we offer three suggestions.
First, while the selected math programs are an improvement, the rigor of either Singapore math or Saxon math is still greater. The programs FCPS selected follow the Common Core standards. We recommend that FCPS consider using the world-class math standards produced by California, which many experts agree set a higher bar than the Common Core.
FCPS could continue with the textbooks it has selected, but would need to make adjustments to the instructional sequence those books provide to ensure students master the content that the best available standards expect.
Second, we recommend piloting several math programs that weren't selected. Selecting a textbook based on performance in our classrooms by using objective data is more reliable than selecting one based on the consensus opinion of a task force, no matter how well-chosen the members of that group may be.
By allowing objective evidence rather than beliefs or philosophy to drive decisions, programs that produce the desired outcomes rise to the top. We hope the board will consider piloting Singapore math, Saxon math and Connecting Math Concepts. Some of these vendors are so confident that their product will outperform others that they will provide their materials free or heavily discounted to school systems that conduct a valid pilot.
Third, we hope the board will continue re-examining both the curricular materials and the approaches schools are using in other subject areas. Of particular concern to us is the selection of a core comprehensive reading program.
FCPS continues to promote the use of the "balanced literacy" approach instead of an approach grounded in scientifically based reading research that has been shown to reach nearly every child.
It is the responsibility of the school system to select and provide teachers with programs that are proven to work. In addition to a research-based program, school systems must identify gaps in teacher knowledge regarding reading instruction and provide training to develop the understanding of the critical role of phonics and other essential components of scientifically based reading research.
We know that school board member Donna Crook has long advocated for improvements in reading, and hope that the rest of the board will join with her to address this issue. Our confidence in the board's ability to address this critical issue has never been higher, and we hope they choose to do so.
Tom Neumark, Point of Rocks
The writer is a founder of FrederickEducationReform.com.
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
Richmond selectmen begin RSU 2 withdrawal talks
RICHMOND — Selectmen are scheduled to meet at 6 p.m. today at the town office on Gardiner Street.
Under administrative items, the board is scheduled to discuss review of the withdrawal process concerning members of public school systems. The town on June 14 posed a non-binding questions to Richmond voters to determine if they favor authorizing the Board of Selectmen to explore the town’s withdrawal from Regional School Unit 2, as well as raising and appropriating up to $30,000 for the related legal, professional and other expenses. Richmond voters resoundingly said yes by a 180-34 count.
Richmond shares RSU 2 with Dresden, Monmouth, Hallowell and Farmingdale. Earlier this month, Monmouth voters in a nonbinding referendum also endorsed studying withdrawal from RSU 2.
An amendment to the state law that spurred school district consolidation prevents towns from withdrawing from a regional school district until 30 months after formation of the district. In the case of RSU 2, the earliest date that could occur would be Jan. 1, 2012.
The withdrawal process involves a petition to the district and Maine Department of Education. It also requires a two-thirds majority vote in a referendum in the affected town.
In other business scheduled for this evening, selectmen are slated to receive updates on Richmond Days and the transfer station; hear a request from Timothy Seigars to use Lane Field; and consider scheduling a workshop date to discuss goals and objectives.
Under administrative items, the board is scheduled to discuss review of the withdrawal process concerning members of public school systems. The town on June 14 posed a non-binding questions to Richmond voters to determine if they favor authorizing the Board of Selectmen to explore the town’s withdrawal from Regional School Unit 2, as well as raising and appropriating up to $30,000 for the related legal, professional and other expenses. Richmond voters resoundingly said yes by a 180-34 count.
Richmond shares RSU 2 with Dresden, Monmouth, Hallowell and Farmingdale. Earlier this month, Monmouth voters in a nonbinding referendum also endorsed studying withdrawal from RSU 2.
An amendment to the state law that spurred school district consolidation prevents towns from withdrawing from a regional school district until 30 months after formation of the district. In the case of RSU 2, the earliest date that could occur would be Jan. 1, 2012.
The withdrawal process involves a petition to the district and Maine Department of Education. It also requires a two-thirds majority vote in a referendum in the affected town.
In other business scheduled for this evening, selectmen are slated to receive updates on Richmond Days and the transfer station; hear a request from Timothy Seigars to use Lane Field; and consider scheduling a workshop date to discuss goals and objectives.
Report: School districts at funding cliff
School systems are experiencing a triple whammy. Federal resources are drying up at the same time that state budgets are being cut and revenues from local property taxes are shrinking due to falling housing prices and foreclosures.
Readers weigh in on Everyday Math issue (Anchorage)
Exercpt:
Program very difficult to teach
I recently retired from public school teaching after more than 40 years, and have used many math programs. Everyday Math is the most frustrating and problematic program I have ever encountered.
Don't let its clever title convince you that it is basic math for everyday living. Its methods are often so esoteric, indirect, circuitous and confusing that many experienced teachers spend lots of time figuring out each lesson for themselves before they can teach it.
And so little practice is given for new skills.
For children who quickly grasp abstract concepts (perhaps the top 25 percent in an average school) additional practice may not be necessary. But this lack of practice in a variety of applications leaves many students struggling to understand and keep up. It also leaves many parents frustrated in trying to help with homework they don't understand and stressed over the hours children spend on math homework.
Everyday Math is really "genius math," wasted on most of us who aren't in that category and don't seek that level of understanding.
-- Carolyn Harris
Read more: http://www.adn.com/2011/06/27/1939474/readers-weigh-in-on-everyday-math.html#ixzz1QfP4voc2
Program very difficult to teach
I recently retired from public school teaching after more than 40 years, and have used many math programs. Everyday Math is the most frustrating and problematic program I have ever encountered.
Don't let its clever title convince you that it is basic math for everyday living. Its methods are often so esoteric, indirect, circuitous and confusing that many experienced teachers spend lots of time figuring out each lesson for themselves before they can teach it.
And so little practice is given for new skills.
For children who quickly grasp abstract concepts (perhaps the top 25 percent in an average school) additional practice may not be necessary. But this lack of practice in a variety of applications leaves many students struggling to understand and keep up. It also leaves many parents frustrated in trying to help with homework they don't understand and stressed over the hours children spend on math homework.
Everyday Math is really "genius math," wasted on most of us who aren't in that category and don't seek that level of understanding.
-- Carolyn Harris
Read more: http://www.adn.com/2011/06/27/1939474/readers-weigh-in-on-everyday-math.html#ixzz1QfP4voc2
Schools wrong to teach Everyday math (Anchorage)
Op-ed written by Amy Johnson. She has a child in the Anchorage school system, a masters degree in applied math and has tutored many students in math over the years.
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
More complaints about EDM from parents in Alaska
exercpt:
Many parents feel strongly that Everyday Math is a mistake.
"Why is the school district even considering maintaining a curriculum that is so difficult to teach and requires continuing education for parents to help their student with homework?" asked parent Rachel Saxby.
Saxby said she voted against school bonds because she's upset about the district spending money on "misguided experiments in curricula," among other criticisms.
Saxby was one of more than 15 parents, grandparents and a teacher who sent emails to respond to a Daily News question about the math program.
"When my son was at Susitna Elementary, he brought home the book," said Mike Carrier, "The math curriculum was so crazy. It seemed to go around eight to 10 more hoops than was necessary to come up with the proper answer to what should be easy math equations."
The program teaches kids three or more ways to multiply and divide, said parent Jim Miller. "If you are a student struggling to learn just one way to multiply or divide, trying to teach you several different ways of doing it just confuses you!"
"Everyday Math is an awful educational tool and very hard to understand," said Yvette Miller, another parent. "After re-reading the instructions on some of the homework my daughter has brought home I felt as if I was unable to help my child with having a better understanding of this type of math."
She said she agrees with the thought others have voiced: "'Teach math the old way.' This is the way I've taught my children at home."
Airport Heights Elementary teacher Emily Becker is also critical of Everyday Math. "It's not a bad curriculum by any means," she wrote. "However, it is disastrous for English language learners, students who struggle with reading comprehension and students who struggle with abstract concepts."
"I dearly wish they would ditch EDM."
Read more: http://www.adn.com/2011/06/26/1937573/after-complaints-school-board.html#ixzz1QZSUtLRv
Many parents feel strongly that Everyday Math is a mistake.
"Why is the school district even considering maintaining a curriculum that is so difficult to teach and requires continuing education for parents to help their student with homework?" asked parent Rachel Saxby.
Saxby said she voted against school bonds because she's upset about the district spending money on "misguided experiments in curricula," among other criticisms.
Saxby was one of more than 15 parents, grandparents and a teacher who sent emails to respond to a Daily News question about the math program.
"When my son was at Susitna Elementary, he brought home the book," said Mike Carrier, "The math curriculum was so crazy. It seemed to go around eight to 10 more hoops than was necessary to come up with the proper answer to what should be easy math equations."
The program teaches kids three or more ways to multiply and divide, said parent Jim Miller. "If you are a student struggling to learn just one way to multiply or divide, trying to teach you several different ways of doing it just confuses you!"
"Everyday Math is an awful educational tool and very hard to understand," said Yvette Miller, another parent. "After re-reading the instructions on some of the homework my daughter has brought home I felt as if I was unable to help my child with having a better understanding of this type of math."
She said she agrees with the thought others have voiced: "'Teach math the old way.' This is the way I've taught my children at home."
Airport Heights Elementary teacher Emily Becker is also critical of Everyday Math. "It's not a bad curriculum by any means," she wrote. "However, it is disastrous for English language learners, students who struggle with reading comprehension and students who struggle with abstract concepts."
"I dearly wish they would ditch EDM."
Read more: http://www.adn.com/2011/06/26/1937573/after-complaints-school-board.html#ixzz1QZSUtLRv
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)