Decision favors plaintiffs in court challenge of Seattle math text adoption

Statement from Laurie Rogers:

Last year, Seattle Public Schools adopted the Discovering math series despite valiant opposition from parents and math professionals, despite poor assessments of the Discovering series' rigor and quality of presentation, and despite the fact that OSPI did NOT ultimately recommend the Discovering math series.
In response, three people filed a lawsuit, saying that Seattle didn't have sufficient supporting evidence for its adoption, and also that the Discovering series was associated with an INCREASE in achievement gaps.

Recently, a judge agreed with the plaintiffs and - while stopping short of telling Seattle administrators to cease and desist in their adoption - told them to revisit it. The district can continue to use the Discovering series, and Seattle administrators have stated their clear intention to do so.
Nevertheless, the court decision is momentous. It sets a precedent for districts across the country. When board members can't justify their adoption decisions, the people now have legal recourse.

What sheer arrogance and hubris Seattle administrators must have to persist in pursuing reform/discovery math instruction -- despite the statistics, despite the resistance, despite the remediation rates, dropout rates, achievement gaps, lack of skills, opposition from math professionals, concerns from parents, and low pass rates on standardized tests. Even with a court decision that basically says the school board's adoption of the Discovering series was rooted in ignorance ... Seattle administrators STILL persist.

Please express appreciation to Martha McLaren and her fellow plaintiffs for their courage and dedication. If you would like to assist Martha in her substantial court costs, please let me know and I can pass on your message.
Meanwhile, a toast to you, Martha. Other advocates will follow in your footsteps.

**********************************************

Press release from Martha McLaren, plaintiff. Reprinted here with permission:


Decision Favors Plaintiffs in Court Challenge of Seattle High School Math Text Adoption

Seattle, Washington – February 4, 2010 – Judge Julie Spector today announced her finding of “arbitrary and capricious” in the Seattle School Board's May 6 vote to adopt the Discovering Math series of high school texts despite insufficient evidence of the series' effectiveness.

Judge Spector's decision states, “The court finds, based upon a review of the entire administrative record, that there is insufficient evidence for any reasonable Board member to approve the selection of the Discovering series.”

Plaintiffs DaZanne Porter, an African American and mother of a 9th-grade student in Seattle Public Schools, Martha McLaren, retired Seattle math teacher and grandparent of a Seattle Public Schools fifth grader, and Cliff Mass, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Washington, had filed their appeal of the Board's controversial decision on June 5th, 2009. The hearing was held on Tuesday, January 26th, 2010.

Declared plaintiff Martha McLaren, “This is a sweet victory for the parents and students of Seattle Public Schools. It announces to Seattle that in this instance, the School District's practice of ignoring evidence, in favor of preconceived decisions, is arbitrary and capricious, and contrary to law. The judge's finding may, hopefully, be a step towards improving high school math education through replacing confusing textbooks with coherent ones. However, students at all levels, not just in high school, badly need clear, understandable materials. In addition, it is essential that teachers, especially elementary teachers, understand fundamental math much more deeply than is now the norm. There is much work to be done to bring improvement; this decision is an encouraging development.

We are hopeful that the District will move forward responsibly, putting the students first, and will decline to appeal Judge Spector's decision. If the Board revisits its vote, as ordered by the court, and this time refuses to adopt Discovering, it seems possible that the textbook rated 2nd by the adoption committee, a series by Prentice Hall publishers which is well-regarded by critics of reform texts, might instead be recommended by Superintendent Goodloe-Johnson. The Seattle Public Schools could then begin undoing the long-term decline in math education that has been extended by this disastrous mistake.”

According to the plaintiffs' initial brief, Seattle Public Schools began eliminating "traditional" math texts in the 1990s, moving toward an approach called "reform," "discovery learning," or "constructivism," among other names. Reform texts rely heavily on written language, presenting complicated, “real-life” problems. Memorization and skills practice is de-emphasized, and calculator work is encouraged from kindergarten on. Students generally work in small groups to devise their own approaches and solutions. With traditional "explicit" texts, however, students are given the opportunity to master key topics through examples, practice and extensive teacher feedback.

The initial brief had stated that the district committee chosen to review mathematics textbooks was biased toward reform, and that the textbook criteria were similarly biased, so that the resulting recommendation would be a reform textbook. The plaintiffs also asserted that the board voted to adopt the Discovering textbook series in contradiction of information presented from community members prior to the vote.

Citizens testifying to the board prior to the May 6 vote emphasized that the Discovering textbook series had been rated “unsound” in a review conducted by the Washington State Board of Education, and that the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction had passed over the Discovering program, instead recommending Holt Mathematics, a balanced textbook series featuring increased explicit instruction.

In Seattle, the movement toward reform texts has culminated in the adoption of the Everyday Math K-5 texts in 2007, Connected Mathematics Project (CMP2) texts for grades 6 – 8 in 2006, and the Discovering texts for high school in 2009 .

Attorney Keith Scully of Gendler and Mann, LLP, represented the plaintiffs in the lawsuit. Even before the decision was announced, the plaintiffs voiced their unanimous admiration for his presentation of the appeal; his handling of the case was clearly crucial to the success of the project.

##

Delphi Technique: The art of pretending to achieve consensus

"To me consensus seems to be the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values and policies in search of something in which no one believes, but to which no one objects—the process of avoiding the very issues that have to be solved, merely because you cannot get agreement on the way ahead. What great cause would have been fought and won under the banner 'I stand for consensus'?"
-- British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, 1981


I had heard of the “Delphi Technique” being used to bring a committee to “consensus,” but before my experience on Spokane Public Schools’ most recent high school math curriculum adoption committee, I hadn’t seen it in action. Fortunately for Spokane students, most members on the adoption committee resisted the siren call of the Delphi Technique and ultimately chose the two stronger curricula as their finalists for a high school math curriculum. But the adoption process isn't over. The possibility remains for the district to adopt neither.

Here is an example of how any committee can achieve “consensus” without actually achieving it.

1. First, the committee is split into small groups. Each group contains different “types” of committee members. Thus, like-minded individuals are separated from each other and spread around the room, and their influence is lessened and more easily “managed.”
2. “Rules” for behavior are set up so that real debate is disallowed.
3. Each group contains a few people loyal to the institution’s agenda. One is willing to grab for the pen and paper and be the official recorder; another can monitor group behavior for adherence to the “rules.”
4. Oppositional or problematic comments are eliminated. Recorders politely but persistently “interpret,” reject, ignore, rewrite or “reframe” unwanted comments.
5. Requests for debate or discussion are ignored or rejected. Monitors politely but persistently delay debate and redirect conversations to safer areas.
6. Each recorder produces a “summary” or “synopsis” of comments. The summaries virtually eliminate most problematic comments. Remaining challenges are dismissed as being the minority view. Even clear oppositional statements can be questioned – “What does that mean, anyway?” – thus casting doubt upon them and lessening their influence.
7. From these summaries or synopses, the institution creates a “perception” or a “perspective,” supposedly drawn directly from what committee members said.
8. Persistent questioners are ignored or admonished for a) operating outside of the “rules,” b) refusing to accept the “consensus” of the group, or c) being unreasonable pains in the neck.

Most people find it difficult to combat all of this. It’s uncomfortable being the odd one out. It’s exhausting to fight for every inch of ground, every word, every phrase, every idea … and then look up to find that what was said isn’t there. It’s hard to go back and do it again the next day.

(And if one’s job depends on getting along with the people who run that committee, it can be a devastating choice one makes to continually try to get a solid word in edgewise. I think most employees won’t dare fight that battle.)

And so, most people give up and get quiet – or they suddenly find they have time conflicts and must drop out. Those who remain on the committee tend to be supporters of the institutional agenda, or they’re willing to go along to get along, or they become convinced they’re being heard. Dissent evaporates, and things quiet down. The few who continue to present an opposing view are easily managed and dismissed.

Voila! “Consensus.”

The first time the members of Spokane Public Schools’ high school math curriculum adoption committee met was Sept. 29, but it wasn’t until Dec. 9 – more than 10 weeks later – that we finally were allowed to examine eight possible curricula. What were we doing on all of the other days?

We could have spent those five days discussing the new state math standards; the various curricula assessments that had been done by OSPI and the State Board of Education; the National Mathematics Advisory Panel Final Report; any math curricula that had already arrived at the district; the suitcase of data and research that I brought for the committee; or our perspectives on how K-12 math should be taught. But the standards, curricula assessments and NMAP report weren’t discussed in depth; we didn’t see any math curricula until Dec. 3; the data and research I brought weren’t discussed at all; and debates over teaching methodology were actively discouraged. Instead, we were forced to endure 23 hours of discussion on items such as the following:

1. How to speak with each other nicely.
   I kid you not. Committee leaders even “redirected” our discussions as if we were 6-year-olds. I half expected them to say, “Now use your words.”
2. “Consensus” – what it means, that it was the goal of the committee, and how committee members were to go about achieving it.
   But our views were diverse, and we weren’t allowed to debate critical issues. True consensus, therefore, was not reached. Dissenters were ignored, deliberately misunderstood, or worn down until they gave up.
3. A new definition of “dialogue.”
   Concerned that we weren’t allowed to debate anything, I asked that “dialogue” be added to our “norms” (our rules for behavior.) The word was added, but at the next meeting, the secondary math coordinator explained at length how “dialogue” means to not discuss the issues. In each group, he said, a person was to say something, and then tablemates were to respond, one by one, each with a thought that was brief, not an opinion, and not a challenge. We were then to move on.
4. Discussions of the district’s education “research.” The district continually gave us “research” that is poorly written; illogical; adamantly opposed to anything traditional; and uncritically supportive of reform math and extreme constructivism.
   Although they kept telling us that the field of cognitive science supports current education theory, we weren’t given anything written by actual cognitive scientists. This is probably because actual cognitive scientists say that it’s premature to base curriculum decisions on cognitive science.
   A few of us objected to some or all of this education “research,” but our objections were generally ignored, rewritten, or reframed as questions.

Early in the process, committee members were asked to discuss our perception of the current state of mathematics in Spokane, and also to state what we want things to look like. The district rewrote our feedback and then tossed out our original notes. The rewrites are different from what we said. Most comments that were supportive of a "traditional" approach were minimized or eliminated.

Despite having to suffer with this dodgy process, Spokane’s adoption committee chose Holt Mathematics and Prentice Hall Mathematics as its two finalists for a new high school mathematics curriculum. I have a preference between the two, but both align better to the new state standards; are more rigorous in content; allow for more flexibility in teaching methodology; provide students, teachers and parents with solid resources, examples, explanations, and opportunities for practice; and they align well with what students and parents said they want in a new curriculum.

I’m exceedingly proud of this adoption committee, but we are not yet out of the woods. These two choices are being piloted in the district now. Some of those piloting the curricula are opposed to their adoption. The two curricula will then go past a group of principals and a group of administrators – most of whom have not done the work the adoption committee did. I expect many, if not most of them, to vehemently oppose both curricula. In their language to the committee, district administrators have left the door open to adopting neither.

Therefore, if you have anything to say about what you would like for a high school math curriculum for your children, now is the time to speak up. If you prefer to write a letter, I recommend you write it to the school board. This might improve your chances of being heard. Please do not delay. Time, tide, and the push for fake consensus wait for no one.


Please note: The information in this post is copyrighted. The proper citation is:
Rogers, L. (February, 2010). "Delphi Technique: The art of pretending to achieve consensus." Retrieved (date) from the Betrayed Web site: http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailing.blogspot.com/

Public forums offer look at math curricula

Spokane Public Schools is undergoing a high school mathematics curriculum adoption process. In December, the adoption committee chose Holt Mathematics and Prentice Hall Mathematics as the two finalists.

District administrators have scheduled two public forums to give parents an opportunity to look at these two curricula and offer their thoughts:
Jan. 21, Rogers High School, 6-7 p.m.
Jan. 26, Ferris High School, 6-7 p.m.

The two meetings are open to the public, and I hope you'll attend. Please also pass on the message to other parents. Whatever your interest in K-12 math instruction, this is your opportunity to tell the school district what you want.

Both Holt and Prentice Hall are "traditional" in their presentation of the subject matter, each offering high school material in 3 separate texts: algebra I, geometry, and algebra II. (For many years, Spokane administrators have depended on math programs that use an "integrated" approach where the subjects are mixed together.)

Although a "traditional" presentation of content does not guarantee"traditional" content, both Holt and Prentice Hall are more traditional in content. In these two curricula, proofs, theorems and algorithms are presented in a clear, concise manner, and students are not expected to discover these on their own. The texts do contain some opportunities for discovery. (For many years, Spokane administrators have forced the use of extreme “reform” texts that deemphasized or removed standard algorithms and arithmetic skills, and that emphasized excessive calculator work, excessive group work, and almost constant student "discovery" of mathematical concepts).

Despite the abject failure of reform/discovery curricula in Spokane and across the entire nation, there still is stiff resistance here to adopting anything remotely “traditional.” It’s my belief, therefore, that Holt and Prentice Hall are as close as the district will get at this time to more "traditional" content. However, it is not certain that the district will adopt either of these curricula. Spokane administrators have left the door open to adopting neither. If the district rejects both, what will be the high school math program next fall? Perhaps it will be what we have now, the truly execrable Core-Plus Mathematics Project and the current long parade of (expensive, yet ultimately unsuccessful) supplementary materials.

Spokane is at a critical juncture – this high school adoption will set the template for future adoptions in middle school and elementary school. If you seek a more traditional approach to K-12 math instruction in Spokane, your feedback is desperately needed.

College students: High school graduates, college students, and college graduates could come to the forums and reflect back on their high school mathematics classes. Did they get the math they needed for a successful college experience? Did they require remediation in mathematics during K-12 or after they graduated? Would they have preferred a different approach to math instruction? Do they think either Holt or Prentice Hall would have given them the skills they needed? These reflections would help inform the selection process.

Parents and students: Parents can come to the forums and offer their thoughts on what they want from a high school mathematics curriculum and how they prefer this material be presented and taught. Does Holt or Prentice Hall meet those needs? Parents are welcome to bring their middle school and high school students, whom no doubt have experiences and preferences they would like to share with the committee.

Business: Business owners and tradespeople can attend and discuss the skills they require from high school graduates. Does Holt or Prentice Hall offer the skills necessary for a successful job or trades application?

College professors: College and university STEM instructors can come to the forums and offer informed input on the math skills of their incoming or remedial students. Does Holt or Prentice Hall offer appropriate instruction in those critical math skills?

To all:
January 21 and January 26 are your opportunities to be heard. I plan to attend both forums. If you can't make it to either meeting, please submit your comments in writing to members of the Spokane school board. Tell them what you want. Please also pass on the message to other parents. And thank you very much for whatever you can do to help inform the selection process.

Note: I am a member of the adoption committee, however this notice was not written on behalf of the committee. If you have questions about this notice or about my experiences on the adoption committee, please contact me at wlroge@comcast.net.

School district excludes feedback from mathematicians

Last September, Spokane Public Schools created an adoption committee that was to choose a new high school mathematics curriculum. For the first time perhaps ever, parents, students and community members (including yours truly) were allowed to participate. The committee met six times in 2009. At our Dec. 9 meeting, we chose two strong finalists from eight possibilities, and we did it despite the district’s complete mishandling of the adoption process. Administrators and “facilitators” wasted our time and tax dollars on useless activities; minimized or excluded feedback from parents, teachers, students, and committee members; and continually showered us with extreme reform propaganda.

On Dec. 9, the district’s interference went to a whole new level. On that day, members of the adoption committee were barred from determining whether the eight possible curricula met the most crucial requirement on our list: “Alignment to State Standards.” Instead, we were told to use a previous assessment from the Washington State Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction. We were assured that if OSPI ranked a curriculum as being closely aligned to the state standards, the program was assumed to be “accurate, rigorous, and high quality.”
This assurance necessarily presumed that OSPI's assessment was done thoroughly, correctly and without bias. But that presumption is on shaky ground.

In 2008, under former State Superintendent Terry Bergeson, a team put together by OSPI assessed 13 high school math curricula (3 texts each), mapping each to the new state standards. There wasn't time for careful assessments of "mathematical soundness." The top four were:
1. Holt
2. Discovering Algebra/Geometry
3. Glencoe
4. Prentice Hall

Core-Plus Mathematics Project, Spokane’s current high school math curriculum, placed sixth overall. Core-Plus is a reform program, and its text is arranged in an “integrated” fashion. Of the textbooks with a “traditional arrangement of content,” (algebra/geometry/algebra), Holt placed second in algebra and first in geometry. Meanwhile, Discovering Algebra/Geometry placed first in algebra, but sixth in geometry.
(Although Discovering Algebra/Geometry contains a “traditional arrangement of content,” it isn’t a “traditional” textbook. The texts are heavily constructivist, with constant group work and student "discovery.")

OSPI also asked Drs. James King and George Bright to assess the top four curricula for mathematical soundness. Both men had potential conflicts of interest.

• Dr. Bright has a Ph.D. in mathematics education (not in mathematics) and has advocated for reform math. At the time, he worked for OSPI. He also was part of the assessment team for reform curriculum Connected Mathematics.
• Dr. King has a Ph.D. in mathematics and is an author for Key Curriculum Press (Key Curriculum Press is the publisher for Discovering/Algebra/Geometry).

Only Dr. Bright reviewed the algebra textbooks. Only Dr. King assessed the geometry textbooks, but he assessed McDougal-Littell instead of Discovering Geometry because the latter had scored too low in OSPI’s initial assessment to be considered for this additional assessment. Dr. Bright found Holt and Discovering Algebra to be the best in algebra; Dr. King found Holt and Prentice Hall to be the best in geometry.

OSPI released a preliminary recommendation to the State Board of Education (SBE). Legislation required the SBE to review the recommendation before OSPI issued a final recommendation to the school districts and to the general public. The top 3:
1. Holt
2. Discovering Algebra/Geometry
3. Core-Plus Mathematics

I’ll bet you’re wondering how Core-Plus snuck in there. I wondered the same thing. In January 2009 I asked OSPI why Core-Plus was recommended over other, better curricula. Greta Bornemann, OSPI’s math director, told me that Randy Dorn, the new superintendent, wanted to have at least one integrated curriculum in the top three.

And so OSPI initially chose to recommend Core-Plus (despite the entire series being widely panned) and Discovering Algebra/Geometry (despite the geometry portion of that series being widely panned).

The SBE meanwhile had contracted with Strategic Teaching, Inc. to have the top four curricula assessed by other independent mathematicians. For this assessment, the fourth-ranked curriculum – Prentice Hall – was passed over so that sixth-place Core-Plus Mathematics could be assessed in depth.
Two mathematicians – Dr. Stephen Wilson, Johns Hopkins University, and Dr. Guershon Harel, University of California, San Diego – determined that Core-Plus and Discovering Algebra/Geometry are indeed mathematically unsound. Holt – while not thought to be fabulous – was the only one of the four found to be mathematically sound in all categories assessed.
Following this process, OSPI issued its final recommendation to the public. Just one high school curriculum was recommended: Holt Mathematics.

This fall, Dr. Bridget Lewis, Spokane’s executive director of instructional programs, told parents in two community forums that the mathematicians conducting the state reviews did not agree on the results. This is a partial truth. All four of the in-depth reviewers (Drs. Wilson, Harel, Bright and King) chose Holt Mathematics in their final summary. Drs. Wilson and Harel also agreed on the unsound nature of Discovering Algebra/Geometry and Core-Plus Mathematics.

Dr. Lewis and Rick Biggerstaff, Spokane’s secondary math coordinator, knew about the additional in-depth assessments, and also about OSPI’s sole recommendation of Holt, yet they still forced the curriculum adoption committee to use OSPI’s original, cursory scoring. On Dec. 9, I asked Rick Biggerstaff why they did that. I mentioned the in-depth assessments from Drs. Wilson and Harel, plus another done by mathematician Dr. John Lee, University of Washington (who also found Discovering Algebra/Geometry to be inadequate). Rick Biggerstaff brushed off my concerns, saying the assessments from Drs. Wilson and Harel were only about “mathematical soundness,” not “alignment.” Pointing to OSPI’s original scoring, he repeatedly stated, “We’ve decided we’re going to use this.”

But why? Why would Spokane administrators insist on using OSPI’s original scoring when its results conflict with later in-depth assessments? The most notable aspect of OSPI’s original scoring is that the OSPI team ranked Discovering Algebra/Geometry – a highly constructivist (discovery) program – as second overall despite its dismal scoring in geometry.
Perhaps Dr. Lewis and Rick Biggerstaff didn’t bother to become informed about the in-depth assessments. Or, perhaps their unstated agenda was to keep a constructivist program in the running despite its known inadequacy. Perhaps both. Are there other possibilities?

Despite all of this, a majority of the members of Spokane’s adoption committee stood tall on Dec. 9 and chose Holt Mathematics and Prentice Hall as the two finalists. We did it based on our familiarity with mathematics, our experience in mathematics instruction and tutoring, and the desires of the community we serve. I’m proud of the committee. Now, if we can successfully navigate Spokane’s brief pilot of Holt and Prentice Hall, the district’s final recommendation to the school board, the school board vote, and the funding of the new math curriculum, we’ll really be getting somewhere.



Please note: The information in this post is copyrighted. The proper citation is:
Rogers, L. (December, 2009). "School district excludes feedback from mathematicians." Retrieved (date) from the Betrayed Web site: http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailing.blogspot.com/

School district excludes feedback from parents, teachers

Statement from Laurie Rogers on the feedback (part 2):
Spokane Public Schools’ pre-selection criteria for its new high school math curriculum are purportedly based on summaries of feedback from parents, students and teachers.
Careful diligence was required, therefore, in the collection and summarizing of this feedback. Unfortunately, the processes were so poorly conducted as to render the District’s summaries of the feedback virtually worthless.
It's a shame. Parents and teachers who offered their thoughts appear to care deeply about the issue. It’s disgraceful that so many of their thoughts were rewritten, minimized, reinterpreted, questioned, doubted and “summarized” right off the page.
(In spite of this, the adoption committee members did appear to take the community feedback into account, overwhelmingly voting for Holt Mathematics or Prentice Hall Mathematics as their top choice. These two curricula will now undergo a more in-depth assessment, including a brief classroom pilot, before a final recommendation is made to the school board.)

*********************************************

Parent Feedback Contaminated; Parent/Teacher Feedback Excluded:

In November, SPS hosted two community “forums” on the adoption of a new high school math curriculum. Those who came to the forums listened to a 50-minute District presentation, then were asked to write down on 3”x5” cards what they want from a new high school math program.
District staff made no attempt to differentiate between parents who work for the District and parents who don’t. There was no attempt to collect feedback only from parents, or only from parents of students in the district. The forums were attended by District staff, board members, university professors, District teachers, and math coaches – including people on the curriculum committee. Cards were handed out across the room. I was given cards at both forums.
Thus, the parent feedback was contaminated from the start.

The next week, I went back to the District office and looked through the cards collected at the two forums. I saw an interesting dichotomy.
Most of the cards are clear about a desire for a more traditional approach. They variously ask for “traditional” math, “basic” math, examples, direct instruction, practice, review, standard algorithms, a textbook, mathematical principles, skill proficiency (without calculators), level-appropriate material, tutoring, individual work, a dual track, alignment with state standards, a reference set of formulas, workbooks, and clarity.
On the polar opposite are a few cards asking for connections, explorations, conceptual understanding, application, and real-world context. Looking at these cards, one might think regular parents left their home at dinner time so they could drive to a district high school and use typical educator language to ask the District for more reform math.
Just one card in all of the so-called “parent” cards specifically asks for a “balance” between conceptual and procedural skills, yet this one word became the framework for the District’s summary of the “parent” feedback.

Teacher feedback also was solicited in the same casual, unscientific manner. The two most common teacher requests are “examples” and more opportunities to practice skills. Close behind are requests for context, conceptual understanding or application. Also popular are requests for close alignment with the new Washington State math standards.
A dichotomy is present in the teacher cards, too, however this dichotomy probably is legitimate. Some teachers clearly want a more traditional approach, asking for equations, algorithms, step-by-step instruction or examples for the students, basic skills, proficiency with skills such as algebra, a logical sequence to the material, and no integration of concepts.
The other group wants to stick with reform, asking for investigations and a student-centered, constructivist classroom.
The incompatibility between these philosophies was never discussed in any adoption committee meeting. Quite the contrary. All efforts to discuss it were squelched by the people running our meetings. The way these people consistently handled any disagreement over “reform” vs. “traditional” was to change the subject or substitute the word “balance,” as in “a balance between,” or a “balanced approach” – even if that wasn’t what was said.

On Dec. 3, adoption committee members were asked to go through the parent and teacher cards. We were divided into four groups and asked to “silently” lump the cards into “three to five” categories and then “come to a consensus about a phrase to describe each category.” At my table - a "parent" table - I was surrounded by administrator types, and we didn't have consensus.
“The parents want a textbook,” I said at one point to the Administrator In Charge of the Pen.
“I think it’s implied,” he said, refusing to write the word.
We argued back and forth. “Look,” I finally said, exasperated, showing him the parent cards. “’Textbook.’ ‘Textbook.’ ‘Textbook.’ Just write it down.”
In the course of this process, requests for a more “traditional” approach were excluded. I asked the Administrator In Charge of the Pen to note the disagreement on the poster paper, that some of the parent cards asked emphatically for “traditional math.” Instead, he added words that ultimately fostered the impression of parent requests for balance.

On this day, we were given the opportunity to walk around the room and add notes to other summaries if we thought something was missing. I heard some administrators question what parents or teachers meant by “basic math,” “traditional math” or “standard algorithm.” I wondered what we all had to say before our desire for Math-That-Is-Not-Reform was taken seriously.
When we returned to our tables, we (as in “Not Laurie”) could permanently add additional comments if we thought they were “needed.” At my table, all additional sticky notes were plucked back off.
“You’re removing what the parents told you,” I said to the offender. She was unmoved. “This is supposed to be through our eyes,” she said.

This is the District’s “summary” of what parents requested: “Parent support; student support; practice – a lot; resources for help; real-life or contextual problems; basic skills; balanced content – align with state standards/college readiness; balanced between skills and concepts (some procedural, some contextual, not overly emphasize technology); parent/home/on line resources (textbook); user-friendly with numerous examples, (cleaner, less cluttered appearance, consistent layout).”
The teacher "summary" is strikingly similar to the parent summary. Missing from both are words like “standard algorithm,” “direct instruction” and “traditional math,” even though some committee members added them after seeing them on the cards.
Two members even acknowledged to the ESD101 facilitators that respondents aren’t in sync on a “balanced” approach. That acknowledgment isn’t reflected in the final summaries.

The missing words also don’t show up in the pre-screen criteria. The word “balance” is there, however. Also there is “socially equitable/just for the broad scope of student experiences,” even though no parent, teacher or student feedback card asked for that. In the next article, I’ll tell you about the adoption committee’s pre-screen criteria, and how they shaped – and didn’t shape – the curricula choices that were made.


Please note: The information in this post is copyrighted. The proper citation is:Rogers, L. (December, 2009). "School district excludes feedback from parents, teachers." Retrieved (date) from the Betrayed Web site: http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailing.blogspot.com/

School district excludes feedback from committee, students

Statement from Laurie Rogers on the Feedback (Part 1):
Spokane Public Schools is in the midst of replacing "Core-Plus Mathematics," its current high school mathematics curriculum. The adoption committee’s pre-screen criteria for a new curriculum are purportedly based on summaries of feedback from parents, students and teachers.
(Or so we were told by SPS administrators and two “facilitators” hired from Educational Service District 101).
Careful diligence was required, therefore, in the collection and summarizing of this feedback. Unfortunately, the processes were so poorly conducted as to render the District’s summaries of the feedback virtually worthless.
It’s too bad. Parents, students and teachers who offered their thoughts appear to care deeply about the issue. That their desires are so misrepresented by the District and ESD101 facilitators indicates an unprofessionalism and a lack of respect that I find appalling. But not surprising. Feedback from the adoption committee was misrepresented, too. Then it was tossed out.

District Throws Out Committee Feedback:
The curriculum adoption committee met five times from Sept. 29 to Dec. 3. Each time, we were to share ideas, preferences and concerns and then record summaries of our discussions on sticky notes and poster paper. We disagreed on various issues, so the poster papers reflected oppositional viewpoints.

In our Nov. 9 meeting, committee members were given a typed “perspective” of all of our written feedback to that date. That “perspective,” particularly a section called “Desired Outcome,” seems different from what I remember of the conversations. (Another committee member echoed this thought.)
Returning home on Nov. 9, I emailed Bridget Lewis, executive director of instructional programs, asking her to keep original artifacts handy. I received no reply.
On Nov. 12, I went to the District office and asked to see the artifacts. I was given Nov. 9 poster papers only. When asked for the others, Bridget Lewis and another staff member said they didn’t know where the other artifacts were. On Nov. 13, the staff member confirmed that committee feedback from September and October was “typed up and then tossed.” No apology or explanation was given.

Today, the District’s “perspective” on committee feedback doesn’t mention certain comments, words or phrases from some of the committee members. “Traditional math,” “direct instruction” and “standard algorithm,” for example, aren’t there.
One oppositional viewpoint was pretty much eliminated.

Student Feedback Is Ignored, Excluded:
This fall, SPS asked middle and high school students to share their desires for a high school math curriculum. More than 400 feedback cards were collected.

At the Nov. 9 adoption committee meeting, the ESD101 “facilitators” told members to write down categories for what we thought the students would want. Then the students’ feedback cards were spread out over three desks. We were divided into three groups and told to “silently” assign each card to one heading.
(Most of us didn’t have a chance to see more than our third of the cards. The headings were ours, chosen before we ever saw the cards. The cards contained multiple requests, yet each card was placed under a single heading. From the start, therefore, much of the student feedback was destined to be excluded.) The facilitators then asked for initial committee impressions of the student desires, and the resulting list said: “Good examples; Resources for help: glossary, Website, answers, toolkit; Easy to read and understand; Real-life content (how will I use?); Lots of practice; Technology.”
Committee members didn’t have another chance to look at the student cards, so this initial impression stood, as if it were some kind of proper analysis.

But I had promised my daughter that the student voice would be heard. On Nov. 12, I went to the District office and photocopied the student cards, took the copies home, and over a few days, categorized each student comment according to similar language.
My analysis isn’t an exact science, and it can be argued that, because the method of collecting data was unscientific, any tabulated results are bogus. The question asked of the students was not standard. The students were not given a survey with standard choices, explanations or definitions. I did not speak to the students nor have a chance to clarify their exact intent. Their comments came from their own lexicon and could have meant anything. It’s why I left the results in their own words.
Still, the student comments are consistent. The two most commonly requested items by far are “more examples” and variations of “I need explanations of how to do it.”

On Dec. 3, I gave my results to each member of the committee. When I asked for “explanations” to be added to the District’s “summary,” an ESD101 facilitator said it’s the same thing as “examples” and that I was “splitting hairs.” She didn’t add the word. I asked for “technology” to be removed, since very few students asked for that (29 did say they like their calculators). She refused to remove the word.
Later, I persisted with the two facilitators: “What’s the point of asking the students their views if you aren't going to write down what they said?” Finally, one of them agreed to add the word “explanations,” and she placed a tiny question mark next to “technology.”
The next morning, on Dec. 4, I received an email from Bridget Lewis, telling committee members how happy she was with our effort ... and by the way,

“One caution...when we requested this feedback from these three groups, we did not indicate to them that these comments would be public. This is the reason for only posting our summary of the perspective. Displaying individual card statements publicly would not be appropriate since we did not make that known at the time of the request for input.”

I pondered this email. In my table and summary on student feedback, I don’t have names, grades, classes, schools or programs. There is no identifying information. The table simply collects “like” comments and counts them. The original cards had been spread out on tables in a curriculum adoption meeting that was open to the public. Committee members had viewed the cards and/or openly discussed them in two public meetings. The cards had been taken to the District’s central office where they were viewed by more than one person and kept openly on at least one administrative desk. I was allowed to photocopy the student and parent feedback cards and also to take those photocopies home. Now, suddenly, this information is no longer public? Meanwhile, the District has published some of the students’ exact language.

Well, I am a rule follower, even if I think the rules were put in place solely to squelch debate, foster a predetermined viewpoint, or keep pertinent, critical information from seeing the light of day.
Following is my summary of the top student requests, in order, from most commonly cited to least. I presume that, where the District published exact student language, they did it “appropriately,” and so I used the same student language, placed in “quotes.” I paraphrased the rest.

Laurie Rogers’ Summary of the Top Student Requests

Students said they want:

• More “examples”
• “Explanations,” line by line, of how to do each skill
• Helpful “resources” within the textbook structure, such as the meanings of words, “answers,” “glossary,” directory, lists of mathematical procedures, explanations of mathematical symbols
• Clearer and simpler language, “easier to read and understand”
• Classical math – the math schools used to teach, the math that will get them to college without remediation – with “equations, algorithms, formulas, theorems”
• Useful “visuals”
• Uncomplicated word problems; (or) No more word problems
• Content that’s germane to them, to their life, to college and to their future
• More time and opportunity to “practice” skills
• Small, portable machines that will calculate for them
• The paid adult in the classroom to actually show them how to do things
• To be allowed to progress when they understand something
• Help from a “Website”
• To learn a skill before they’re told to use it
• A textbook that isn’t so big and heavy
• A book they can work in at home

In the next article, I’ll tell you what parents and teachers asked for, and what the District says they asked for. The parent and teacher requests, and the District’s summaries of their requests, are not the same.

Please note: The information in this post is copyrighted. The proper citation is:
Rogers, L. (December, 2009). "School district excludes feedback from committee, students." Retrieved (date) from the Betrayed Web site: http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailing.blogspot.com/

The truth of Spokane's K-12 math program

Statement from Laurie Rogers:

Many people in Washington State aren't aware of just how unprepared our students are in mathematics, at nearly every grade, as they leave elementary school, as they enter high school, and when they graduate - IF they graduate. Statements keep coming at us from education administrators that supposedly point to improved scores, high rankings, increased enrollment in advanced classes, and a strong showing on college placement classes. This consistent misrepresentation of the situation has a dramatic impact on how they see the problem and what they think should be done.
On Nov. 25, in a guest editorial for the Spokesman-Review, for example, Washington State Superintendent Randy Dorn said of Washington: "We are one of just 24 states that have high school exit exams, which places us far ahead of more than half the nation." Also, "We consistently finish near the top on national tests, such as the National Assessment of Educational Progress, the SAT and the ACT."
But these statements are a reworking of the hard truth, as you'll see below.
Local administrators also work hard to give a rosy impression of achievement. In Spokane's Nov. 25 meeting of the high school math curriculum adoption committee, I was told NAEP scores went up "two grades," and I was shown scatter plots that supposedly indicate improved student achievement.

At the Dec. 3 meeting of the curriculum adoption committee, I gave members the following information:

************************************************

Quotations from the August 2009 issue of Spokane Public Schools “School Talk”

“Spokane Public Schools administrators have been working to establish and support a consistent mathematics program across the district…Classrooms have become places where students are highly engaged in the learning process.”
High school teacher: “I’m impressed by the students’ depth of understanding and their ability to communicate mathematical ideas.”
(But Shadle High School’s pass rate for the 2009 10th-grade math test was 47.4%.)
Elementary school teacher: “Kids are able to apply concepts seamlessly in different contexts. They are excited about math now.”
(But Ridgeview Elementary School’s pass rates were 62.1%, 56.3%, 58.2% and 43.5%).
Middle school teacher: “The curriculum does a good job of pushing kids to discover their own understanding. and it also allows time to practice skills and algorithms.”
(But Chase Middle School’s pass rates for the 2009 math WASL were 52.8% and 55.6%).
Elementary school teacher again: “We’re not throwing good practices away. We are melding them with the new things we know.”

Spokane students’ actual mathematical achievement paints a different picture from that perpetuated by the school district. Below is the truth of Spokane's (and Washington State's) K-12 mathematics program.

*************************************************************

Real Data for Spokane Public Schools’ Student Achievement:

The WASL:
In Spring 2009, just 42.3 % of Spokane’s 10th graders passed the math portion of the WASL. The passing cut score is reportedly at about 54%. The content has been estimated as comparable to about a 7th-grade-level internationally.
Therefore, in Spring 2009, 57.7% of Spokane's 10th-grade students could not pass a math test that reportedly required just 54% to pass and that is based on 7th-grade content.

The NAEP:
In order to test as “proficient” in mathematics on the 2009 Mathematics NAEP, 4th-grade students needed to reach just 249 on a scale of 500. Sadly, 57% of Washington’s 4th-grade students couldn’t do it. The average score for Washington’s 4th-graders was 242 out of 500.
In order to test as “proficient” in mathematics on the 2009 Mathematics NAEP, 8th-grade students needed to reach just 299 on a scale of 500. Sadly, 61% of Washington’s 8th-grade students couldn’t do it. The average score for Washington’s 8th-graders was 289 out of 500.

Spokane's Advanced Placement Classes
	1992	2000	2008
Number of students	193	368	1093
Number of exams	271	636	2028
Number of course areas	13	15	27
Number of exams passed	198	515	1099
Percent passing	73%	81%	54%
Number of exams failed	73	121	929
Percent failing	27%	19%	46%
Average grade	3.18	3.45	2.72

The 2006 SAT.
In March 2007, former State Superintendent Terry Bergeson stated that for four years, Washington’s average SAT scores were the highest in the nation. But when I looked at SAT scores for 1995-2007, we were neither the highest nor the lowest. Finally, I realized what Dr. Bergeson was saying: Washington is at the bottom of the top half of the states with respect to how many of its students take the SAT.
In 2006, about 55% of Washington students took the SAT, while in other states, it was as few as 3% or as many as 100%. Counting just those states that had similar participation rates, Washington was ranked first. Therefore, Washington scored lower on the 2006 SAT than 24 other states – and Dr. Bergeson still claimed it was highest in the nation.

The 2009 SAT.
On Aug. 25, 2009, Washington State's Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction reported once again that “State SAT Scores Lead the Nation.” “For the seventh consecutive year,” an OSPI press release said, “Washington state SAT averages are the highest in the nation among states in which more than half of the eligible students took the tests … ”
It’s also important to note that the 2009 SAT scaled score was between 200 and 800. In mathematics, Washington students scored an average of 531 out of 800. Washington’s black students scored an average of 446 out of 800.

The ACT.
In August 2008, OSPI released ACT scores, saying that “for the fifth straight year,” Washington students scored “far above” the national average. Washington scored 23.1; the national average was 21.1.
However, the highest possible score on the ACT is 36. The benchmark score is 22. The benchmark is the “minimum score needed on an ACT subject-area test to indicate a 50% chance of obtaining a B or higher or about a 75% chance of obtaining a C or higher” in college Algebra.
In 2009. Washington’s composite score in math slipped to 22.9 out of 36.

REMEDIATION:
Jim Brady, Dean of Computing, Math and Science, Spokane Falls Community College, has told me that SFCC has about an 80% remediation rate in mathematics for incoming freshmen.

FTE (Full-Time Enrollment);
FTE in Spokane Public Schools has dropped by about 2,500 students since 2002/2003. This is a net figure, not a gross figure, therefore, incoming students likely have offset the total drop.
A Fall 2008 district survey of families who chose to leave the district showed that about 33% said the quality of the curriculum didn’t meet their expectations. Five of the top six schools having out-of-district transfers were high schools. Five of the district’s 7 middle schools were listed in the top 14. A whopping 79% of students who left went to: the Mead School District; online for virtual options; or to the West Valley School District. (Private schools were not included in the survey.)

Academically-related reasons chosen for leaving:
33%: Quality of curriculum does not match your expectations
26%: District class sizes too large
21%: Desired coursework is not offered in the district
19%: Student is not on schedule to graduate
12%: Student is enrolled in a full-time non-district on-line program
12%: Student has not met the 10th grade WASL standards
6%: There is not space for student in a particular district program DROPOUTS:
According to a recent Spokane Public Schools PowerPoint presentation ironically called “Becoming a World-Class System,” just “66% of students in SPS actually graduate from high school.”

*****************************************************************

And there you have it, folks. The truth of mathematics achievement in Spokane and Washington State. This is where public school administrators' almost complete dedication to reform math and constructivist teaching styles have brought us.
Don't let anyone tell you things are looking up relative to mathematics. In order for that to happen, administrators would have to modify their thinking.
In upcoming articles, I'll show you more evidence of the thinking in Spokane Public Schools relative to mathematics instruction.

Please note: The information in this post is copyrighted.

The proper citation is:Rogers, L. (December, 2009). "The truth of Spokane's K-12 math program." Retrieved (date) from the Betrayed Web site: http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailing.blogspot.com/