Math Monitoring Report Comments - Part 4

This is the final part of four parts of my comments on the Math Monitoring Report.  This section covers the management and governance issues, which means the previously identified or newly identified issues faced by our schools relating to Math.

I also include some comments about how to make the Monitoring Report better, i.e., more readable and more actionable.  My next post will go into that in more detail.

_______________________________________________________

GOVERNANCE ISSUE

I have made myself clear on the need to begin a review of the curriculum now in light of the adoption of CCSS.  So as not to appear to be taking things out of context, however, I will quote the italicized recommendation: “The recommendation to the Board of Education will be to adopt Connecticut’s Common Core Math Standards at the next scheduled mathematics curriculum review.  We understand that the Common Core Standards represent the state curriculum document and that Greenwich may add grade level objectives to better frame the district’s definition of mathematically proficient.” 

Given the amount of change occurring, waiting is not an option.  I certainly hope that Greenwich will actually add, as opposed to “may add,” grade level objectives.

MANAGEMENT ISSUES

Mathematics Intervention

I applaud the focus on early intervention (K-3) as a means of closing the gap to comparable districts.  However, while the report covers topics like coaching, instruction models, testing, and diagnostics, there appears to be a lack of attention to curriculum as a potential gap closer.

Student Outcome Indicators – Middle School

“Grade 6 teachers recently listed the following areas of concern regarding grade 6 students’ preparation for middle school math:

-       Difficulty reading problems
-       Basic facts fluency
-       Operations with fraction
-       Long division competency”

This seems to sum up the results of five years of Everyday Math very well.

REPORT STRUCTURAL SUGGESTIONS

1.    There needs to be a much clearer link between the analysis (Data Review section), new issues raised by the analysis (Management Issues section, where I find the statement of the issues to be poorly done), and the actions to be taken (which, for the most part, are missing or nebulous). 

2.    The Management Issues section also needs to highlight and discuss last year's issues, and indicate closure or continuation:

Example: ISSUE (date raised) - ACTIONS TAKEN/TO BE TAKEN - RESULTS - STATUS (close or continue).

Note that last year's Monitoring Report is not posted on the BoE website, so I could not compare this to last year.  NOTE: this was my comment when I wrote the review.  I subsequently found the 2009-10 report attached to the agenda for the meeting in which it was reviewed.  See my next post to discuss old issues and new issues.

3.    Organizing the report by Elementary, Middle and High School segments (i.e., separate 3-5 and 6-8 as there is little overlap) would make the report flow better, and make it more user friendly.