Greenwich School District Rankings - Comments

KCAB:

Thank you for the best wishes; I am hoping for the best but preparing for the worst.

One suggestion I received was to push/challenge the Board of Education to conduct a survey to determine the usage of home tutoring or paid tutoring.  If the results are presented by elementary school, in Greenwich it would paint an interesting picture ( I am betting), in that certain schools’ students would have significant after school help, and certain schools’ students would have minimal help.  While not statistically provable, I also would wager that the correlation to the CMT would be quite positive.  There are probably a few things at work – the kids getting tutoring pushing up the scores (for which EDM will take credit), smart kids without tutoring going toward lower scores (the Race to the Middle) and losing interest, slower learners completely lost, and the great group in the middle, some of whom could be really great, just missing the boat.  Mix that in with changing tests and changing standards, and there is no way of telling if any progress is being made.

And thank you for pointing out the P20 groups.  I hope the 20 doesn’t indicate that it will take from preschool (P) to your twentieth year in school until you learn a useful amount of mathematics.  I hope that when the results are posted, they trigger a conversation around how “40% of our students can graduate from high school and still have to do remedial math before doing college level math!”  (Forty % is my guess) 

On the face of it, the P20 posting of results by high school will be useful data point tied to real results, not test results which are subject to question.  Real results like:

-       How well prepared are the students for algebra after they have done EDM for six years?

-       How well prepared are the students for the work world after graduating from high school?

-       How well prepared are the students for college math?

There have been several unscientific studies by college professors indicating the decline in performance of incoming college freshmen:

http://www.math.jhu.edu/~wsw/ED/devclue.pdf

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymvSFunUjx0

Brian BTN

A Journey Through Everyday Math

Before I get to the next promised topic, a bit of a digression to take a dig at EDM.  For those parents who have made it to third grade (with their children, of course), the biggest complaint I hear is about the Lattice Method of Multiplication.  Never having used the Lattice Method for real calculations (although I have played with it a few times), the question I have is how can anyone say it is "very efficient and powerful", as the EDM Teacher's Reference Manual does?  So I did a little study.

If we look at the operations performed in the standard algorithm and Lattice Method, the Lattice always has more operations (defined below). If I can prove this (and I will), and it is very evident that it takes longer to draw the lattice as the problems becomes larger (moving from 3x3 digit multiplication to 4x4 to nxn), it therefore disproves the EDM Manual's assertion that "The authors have found that with practice, it is more efficient than standard multiplication for problems involving more than two digits in each factor." If there are more operations in the Lattice Method, AND you need to draw the lattice as opposed to just two lines in the standard algorithm, the Lattice Method has to take longer. I don't know how you define efficient, but I have taught my daughter that it means it takes less time (Dictionary - "producing effectively with a minimum of waste or effort "- and we all know what the "waste" is here).

This is not nitpicking, this is a direct attack on the poor quality of material in the teacher's manual, and is reflective of a cavalier attitude toward truth, accuracy and believability in EDM (more to come on that).

And so to the proof (for n x n lattice):
Operations involved:
1. multiplications
2. additions
3. carry in multiplication process
4. carry in addition process
5. writing multiplication results
6. writing addition results

There will always be equal values for multiplications (a nxn digit multiplication will always involve n-squared multiplications), carry in the addition process (there will always be 2(n-1) additions), and writing addition results (the answer will always have at most 2n digits).

For the other operations, the lattice requires 2n-squared (2 x n x n) additions, 2n-squared numbers to be written for multiplication results, and zero carrying in the multiplication process.

For the other operations, the standard algorithm requires (n(n+1)) + (n-1) + (n-2) + (n-3) + .... (n-n) additions, as well as the same for numbers to be written for multiplication results, and (n-1) squared for carrying in the multiplication process. I tried to simplify this but failed (should have paid attention in series class), but doing it by hand for 3x3, 4x4, and 5x5 showed that the lattice method used 2,3, and 4 more operations. When you go to higher n's (yes, I used a spreadsheet), you add three operations to the difference for each increase in n (so for the 6x6, the lattice uses 7 more operations; for 7x7 it uses 10, etc.),.

So, in reality, it is less efficient than the standard algorithm.  Don't you wish your children brought home a text book so you could see what the authors of EDM are telling your children about math? 

Can you believe EDM?  To alter a famous song title (Journey): Don't.  Stop Believing!

Brian BTN

What do standardized tests really mean?

What do standardized tests really mean?  Can we have every child receive a Proficient score on their standardize tests (Connecticut Mastery Test - "CMT"), and still not understand the math.  Let’s start with the concept that a Proficient score means you are proficient, which is defined by CT as:

 “Generally,…. students who perform at this level demonstrate adequate knowledge of grade-level content. These students demonstrate adequate conceptual understanding, computational skills and problem-solving skills, as well as an ability to solve complex and abstract mathematical problems. Typically, the solutions these students provide to math problems are adequate and include sufficient explanations.”

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2010/rpt/2010-R-0167.htm

Proficient is the middle range on the test, starting from Advanced to Goal to Proficient to Basic to Below Basic.  Goal is the score which Connecticut professes to desire of its students, so Proficient is less than what we want from our students.  On the 2011 CMT, about 85% of Connecticut third to fifth graders scored at or above Proficient; about 93.5% of Greenwich 3-5 graders did.  Pretty good, huh?

So where does that Proficient score on the CMT fit with the National Assessment of Educational Progress (“NAEP”), aka the “Nation’s Report Card?”  The NAEP is given to fourth, eighth and twelfth grade students.  The National Center for Education Statistics compared the rigor of the CMT and the NAEP.  For fourth grade students, it determined that a Proficient score on the CMT was equal to a Basic score on the NAEP (barely – CT’s score was 220, when 214 was the cutoff for Basic and 249 was the cutoff for Proficient on the NAEP).  For an eighth grade student, a Proficient score on the CMT was equal to a Below Basic score on the NAEP.  This information was for the 2007 NAEP and CMT tests. 

http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/studies/2010456.pdf

Interestingly, Connecticut lowered its standards between 2005 and 2007. 

The NAEP definition for Basic (at the fourth grade level) is:

“Fourth-grade students performing at the Basic level should show some evidence of understanding the mathematical concepts and procedures in the five NAEP content areas.

Fourth-graders performing at the Basic level should be able to estimate and use basic facts to perform simple computations with whole numbers, show some understanding of fractions and decimals, and solve some simple real-world problems in all NAEP content areas. Students at this level should be able to use—though not always accurately—four-function calculators, rulers, and geometric shapes. Their written responses will often be minimal and presented without supporting information.”

So to answer my question: the CMT may call it Proficient, but it is very close to being not adequate. 

But wait, there’s more!  We can take some solace in the fact that the NAEP is a good and consistent measure of the progress (or lack thereof) we are making, right?  Not so fast. 

Next up: NAEP and NCTM and EDM (MOUSE)

Supplementing Your Child's Math Education

When parents perceive that the work being done by their children in school is not rigorous enough, by whatever measure, most parents look for ways to supplement the work.  At home here we have several decks of flashcards which we use to drill our daughter.  We have also printed off worksheets from the Internet for multiplication, addition, and subtraction practice (watch out, division is next!).  And we have books of word problems which she will delve into when she has nothing to do (which is seldom) or on car trips. 

One of the best resources we have found, which was recommended to us by a good friend, is Khan Academy. 

http://www.khanacademy.org/

This site has both practice sessions, as do many other sites.  The real gem are the videos which explain concepts like borrowing and carrying (or "trade first" and "regrouping" in Everyday Math - although there are slight differences), multi-digit addition and subtraction and many others.  They go into the "why", not just the "how."  Look in the Arithmetic and Developmental Math sections, but there are also sections for Algebra, Geometry, Calculus and up to Diff EQ. 

Side note: how do you remember to spell ARITHMETIC?  A rat in the house may eat the ice cream.  Third grade was a long time ago, but I still remember.

My daughter will often ask to watch a video before reading/bed time.  Music to any parents ears when the video is teaching them something. 

It is interesting (to me, at least, given my campaign to change/eliminate Everyday Math) that some of the techniques used in the well executed Khan Academy videos to explain how to do a procedure or algorithm are included in EDM.  Since there is no EDM text book, we have to assume the teacher is teaching it well, or the children are discovering it for themselves (?!?!).  Teaching these alternative algorithms can help your child understand, but they should be used as teaching tools, not an end in themselves as EDM preaches.  Teach the reasoning, the "why", then get back to the efficient standard algorithms (and don't ignore long division).

Next up: what do standardized tests mean?

Greenwich School District Rankings

Sunday's front page article in the Greenwich Time discussed where Greenwich Public Schools rank in the state of CT.  We all know what they say about statistics (lies, d- - - lies, statistics), so it would be easy to come out just about anywhere by being selective with what stats are used.

Whether you say we rank number one or number 48 or somewhere in between (note that the ConnCan high school ranking on the front page is probably incorrect, according to the actual article), results based on CMT math test scores for elementary students are troubling.  

Real estate buyers and sellers would compare Greenwich to Darien, New Caanan, Westport and a few others contained in the states District Reference Group A ("DRG-A").  From a demographic point of view, the state lumps Greenwich into DRG-B with Madison, Newtown, Avon, and 10+ others.  Numerically, Greenwich is twice the size of most of these districts, based on the number of students taking the CMT.  Does size matter? 

It is wrong to compare DRG-A schools to Greenwich, given the differences in the demographics.  Should we aspire to match or exceed these schools?  Absolutely.   

On the other hand, comparisions to DRG-B schools, regardless of size, is appropriate.  DRG-B schools should have a similar socioeconomic distribution of students, based on the variety of factors used by the state to determine the group (we can always argue about that criteria, too).  Therefore, Greenwich should have a similar percentage of students at or above goal compared to Madison et al.  Well?

Looking at raw data from the CT Dept. of Education for 2011 Math CMT results for grades 3,4, and 5, we find:
Greenwich (76.3% at or above goal, 81.2, 84.0) (3rd, 4th, 5th grades)
Newtown (87.8%, 89.4, 92.0)
Madison (88.0%, 93.5, 89.0)
Avon (78.4%, 90.2, 94.9)
Simsbury (86.9%, 86.2, 92.9)
Monroe (87.9%, 91.1, 87.8)

For comparison, here are some of those DRG-A towns:
Darien (82.5%. 92.1, 93.1)
New Canaan (90.9%, 91.3, 88.9)
Westport (83.8%, 91.3, 91.6)

Data from the below site, which can be reached from the State Department of Education site.
http://solutions1.emetric.net/cmtpublic/Index.aspx

Did I selectively choose towns for comparison for DRG-B?  Yes I did.  These were the top five performers this year on the Math CMT for grades 3-8 in DRG-B, according to the CT Dept. of Education, as published in the Greenwich Times on 24 July 2011.  Where was Greenwich?  17 out of 18.  I'm not a statistician, but these gaps look statistically significant for the population sizes (300-700 per grade).

 
The July 24 article has our former superintendent saying it is not so bad, since the growth/progress of Greenwich students over time is improving faster than other districts.  And I am sure there were all sorts of charts to prove it.

Yet, from an absolute point of view, Greenwich is still behind.  Sooooooo I'm thinking, we should catch up in what, eight to ten years?  Reminds me of one of my favorite sayings: the faster you fall behind, the more time you have to catch up!  (For math students out there, please point out the flaw in that "logic")

That is why it is so refreshing to hear Dr. Lulow, in Sunday's article, say "he believes there is a logic to the rankings, and administrators and teachers recognize there is work to be done." (articles words, not Dr. Lulow's) 

He also stated "It is acceptable and legitimate and responsible for people to debate and discuss school performace.  We take a lot of the public's money.  People have every reason to question what we do."
 
Good start to dealing with the problem.  That's what this blog is about.

Greenwich Public Schools Mathematics Curriculum - Everyday Math

The following presentation was made to the Board of Education of the Greenwich Public Schools at their meeting on 17 November 2011.  The presentation is the start of an effort to have the entire K-12 mathematics curriculum reviewed immediately (for reasons explained in the presentation), and to push for immediate action to address the damage being done to our children by the EVERYDAY MATHEMATICS (R) ("EDM") program used in grades K-5 (for obvious reasons).  As this blog develops, I will provide links to websites detailing the problems with this program and others like it.  I will also provide a link to a site where you can sign a petition addressed to the Board of Education calling for the replacement of EDM.

I hope to hear from all parents with their thoughts about mathematics education and about EDM, good and bad.  Parents must play an active role in their children's education, including participating in the selection of the educational material.  I hope this will serve as a forum for making our children's math education better.

 _________________________________________________________________________________

Mathematics in Greenwich Schools

Remarks to the Board of Education – 17 November 2011

[NOTE: items in brackets were left out due to the three minute time limit.]

(Items in parentheses and in bold are footnoted references - see end of post)

My name is Brian Peldunas.  My wife, Liz, and I are the parents of a third grade student at Riverside.

On 7 October 2011, I submitted a request for curriculum review (attached) for mathematics, with the appropriate forms, to Dr. Lulow.  In a follow up conversation with Dr. Lulow, he stated that the timing of a review was a Board of Education decision, and he promised to raise the matter after the budget season.  Given that budget will be required to execute a curriculum review, I am coming to you tonight to make two requests.  

First, that the planned 2014 curriculum review for Mathematics be rescheduled to begin immediately.  Given the adoption of the Common Core State Standards, and the introduction of new Connecticut Mastery Tests in 2014, an immediate start to the review is warranted to align our curriculum with the new standards (which are already reflected on the new report cards).  The need for this review is recognized on page 50 of Dr. Lulow’s recent Achievement Report, stating we should “Create/Revise Math and Language Arts curriculum to align with Common Core Standards.”  A thoughtful, comprehensive review, followed by good execution, will benefit all Greenwich Public School students and will put the district on the road to improving our standing on standardized tests versus comparable districts (GT, DB).  Why wait?

Second, that action is taken now to systemically address the shortcomings of the Everyday Mathematics program across all of our elementary schools, so all of our students receive a quality math education, not just those students whose parents can afford to address the shortcomings of this program. 

Attached is an example of the “quality” of the Everyday Mathematics program (page 4).  The instructions ask the student to “Fill in each shape to make a recognizable figure.”  This problem appears not once, but twice, in the Student Math Journal, the in-class workbook.  Is this a suitable problem for a second grader?  How is it advancing their mathematical knowledge?  But the reality is even worse: this exercise “problem” is in the sixth grade book.  Even though Greenwich does not use EDM in grade six, such an example leads me to question whether this program should be used in grades K-5.  Two examples of questionable fourth grade homework sets are also attached.

No program is perfect, but Everyday Math is failing our children.  Its mile-wide, inch-deep, unfocused content; its limited attention to automatic recall of basic facts and to the standard algorithms; and its spiraling structure have all been rejected by the National Mathematics Advisory Panel (NMAP).  Our teachers are extensively supplementing the program just to give their students a fighting chance.  The very philosophical foundation of Everyday Math is flawed, and must be rejected.  Given the on-going damage (and I do not use that word lightly) being done to our students, the curriculum review must commence now and Everyday Mathematics must be changed now.  We need to do better, now.  It is time to focus on curriculum.

[Possible actions could range from scrapping the Everyday Math program next year, to eliminating sections of that program now in order to make time for critical topics and instruction, to organizing parent-led after-school groups to help students fill the gaps, to implementing a second competing curriculum (e.g., Saxon or Singapore Math). ]

I will push even farther.  “The Board of Education shall govern the District in such a manner that it sets the national standard for governance, oversight, public engagement and stewardship of the public education system.” (BOEG-000)   If this district is to truly prepare our students for college and/or for the work force of the future, the core competency in the so-called STEM subjects, that is Mathematics, needs focus.  I challenge the Board and the Administration to get serious about mathematics.  Some high performing districts, such as Madison and New Canaan, have math specialists or coaches in their elementary schools (DISCUSS).  Talk to them; find out the costs and the benefits.  [Other districts, like Monroe, are moving to new curriculum in response to the new standards (DISCUSS).  Perhaps we can form a consortium with several districts to review curriculum, so we can save time and money.] 

[My initial reason for researching Everyday Mathematics was to protect my daughter and to determine where gaps needed to be filled in her education.  You may claim that my concern is for the proper education of my daughter, and you would be right.  However, my concern has grown to encompass the much broader issue of the mathematics education of all of our primary, middle and secondary school students.] 

As parents, it is difficult, without significant research, to judge the methods used to educate our children.  What we can judge effectively are the results of these methods.  We, like college professors and employers, are critical and demanding consumers of the results of our children’s educations.  Given the Board policy I quoted earlier, it is the Board of Education’s responsibility to take action on this request, with the appropriate budget.   We need better results now.

If other parents feel the same way, they can reach me at greenwichmath@gmail.com.

Thank you.

Check out "problem" 5.  More art class than math class.

 Hopefully by fourth grade we know our letters.

 Did someone say geography?

REFERENCES

GT – Greenwich Times, Page 1, 24 July 2011 – results of CMT Math for DRG-B schools

DB – State of CT database of CMT results
http://solutions1.emetric.net/cmtpublic/Index.aspx

NMAP – National Mathematics Advisory Panel Final Report

http://www2.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/mathpanel/report/final-report.pdf

DISCUSS – discussions with administrators from a variety of CT school districts

BOEG-000 - Board of Education Governance Policy G-000