GPS Administration Recommendation: No Math Review Until 2014

At the 8 December Board of Education budget review session, the administration provided written responses to questions regarding the budget, posed by Board members prior to the meeting.  According to the agenda document (see page 18, question 31),

http://www.greenwichschools.org/uploaded/district/departments/business_services/budget_12-13/2012-13_Budget_Q&A_II_120811.pdf

at least one of the Board members asked,” Why are we not accelerating the Math Program Review (in light of the new CCSS)?” 

Our thanks go out to the Board member(s) who raised this question. 

To answer the question, the administration touched on:

- the background of the new math Common Core State Standards (“CCSS”),
- the matching exercise mapping Connecticut’s previous standards to the CCSS, done under the auspices of the Connecticut State Department of Education (“CSDE”), and
- recommendations of the CSDE regarding areas to be emphasized during the transition to the CCSS – interpret this as areas which were being short changed under the old standards.

Greenwich’s curriculum (Everyday Math included), adopted after the previous (2004) review, was based on the previous CT standards.  Therefore the matching exercise for CT standards to CCSS will fairly reflect the changes which will be required to bring Greenwich’s curriculum into line with the new standards.

Based on the CSDE matching exercise, the administration stated:

“Overall, 92% of the CCSS math standards were an exact, collective or partial match to Connecticut’s Math standards. The remaining 8% were not matched. This translates to 40 CC Math standards that will be “new” for Connecticut.  Because of the 92% match, much will stay the same, however some CCSS concepts/skills may need to be added and some current standards will move to a different grade.”

Based on this set of facts, the following recommendation was made to the Board:

“Impact on the Math Curriculum Review Timeline

We are not recommending changing the 2014 – 2015 curriculum review cycle for a math for the following reasons:
-• The CSDE is providing a framework (see next section) to guide districts in preparing students for changes to the math content.
-• Overall there is a 92% match between former CSDE curriculum document and the new CCSS. Although this will require us to supplement our K-8 instructional program, it does not make it necessary to replace our current materials.
-• Changing the review cycle will have the biggest impact on our K-5 teachers. That group is already preparing for a new science program and new Language Arts units; adding a new math program would be overwhelming. “

Okay, let’s look at each of the three reasons above.  In relation to “reason” one, the framework referred to is the CSDE recommendation that certain areas be given more emphasis:

“The Connecticut State Department of Education is suggesting that districts begin transitioning to the Common Core by focusing additional instructional time on specific mathematical domains at each of these grade levels:

K-2 - Counting and Cardinality
K-5 - Operations and Algebraic Thinking
3-5 - Number and Operations – Fractions
6-7 - Ratios and Proportional Reasoning
8 – Geometry”

For those who don’t speak math code, this means teach the basics at the appropriate time, and don’t skip the important things. 

But this came out in the “reasons” as, we should wait until the state tells us how to prepare our students for changes in math.  The need for change is evident; why should we wait?  Sounds more like an excuse than a reason.

Regarding reason three, this is a significant concern.  Our teachers are being socked with all sorts of change, particularly in the elementary schools.  How much can they absorb?  But the question asked by the Board was for the acceleration of a review, not for an immediate change in the curriculum (I’m the one pushing to ditch Everyday Math now).  Should the teachers be involved in the review?  Absolutely.  Will it require the same amount of time as an implementation?  No.  Will everyone (teachers and students) get something better out of the other side?  Yes, if the review is done properly, fairly, and openly.

Now for reason two.  There are about 500 Common Core standards for math.  Forty new standards spread across the thirteen K-12 grades yields only about three a grade.  And only “some” current (matched) standards will move to a different grade.  Therefore the conclusion is that we can supplement to reach the goal. By the numbers, that doesn’t seem so bad. 

Two problems with this.  First, supplementing something that is already heavily augmented tips the scales to ridiculous.  Remember where Everyday Math is being supplemented already.  Not the extra, added, for-the-advanced-student work.  No!  It is for the basics: addition, subtraction, multiplication, division.  So what was already an incoherent jumble gets worse.  I’m just guessing, but I think we can do better.

Second, adding more outside work doesn’t address the real issue that the Everyday Math philosophy (courtesy of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics) is flawed.  It still spirals, it still uses calculators, and it still uses non-standard terms and algorithms.  It still is not preparing our children for success.  It is time to focus on curriculum.

And don't forget we already skipped the review that was scheduled for 2010!

So if we don’t start a review until 2014, any pilot program won’t start until 2015, and real implementation won’t start until 2016 (I’m betting).  So we will have to live with a patched together program for the next four plus years.  No wonder Kumon in Cos Cob has extended their hours. Ka-ching.

Oh, did I mention this gets better?  Stay tuned.

Brian BTN