Board of Education Meeting Recap - Making Progress

Last evening I made my monthly visit to the Board of Education meeting.  The principal of New Lebanon School, where the meeting was held, gave an interesting recap of their efforts to improve the literacy level at the school.  It is obvious a large amount of work has gone into the thinking and execution of this plan. 

The President of the PTA Council, Lisa Beth Savitz, indicated in her remarks that the PTAC was “discussing Everyday Math.”  She also expressed concern about the focus on comparisons of Greenwich to DRG A and B districts, which I have used extensively to bolster my arguments.  I understand her concern, but this is one means of getting the attention this issue requires (especially if you mention real estate values in the same line).  Once the focus moves to the curriculum, I will be happy to stop using that tool, but also feel we should be sharing thoughts with other districts about what they are doing regarding math curricula and Common Core Standards.  In addition, she questioned the lack of actions in several Monitoring Reports related to male/female gaps.

The Board of Education accepted the Math Monitoring Report.  The recommendation contained in the report relating to the Common Core Standards implies that the next math curriculum review will be held, as scheduled, in 2014.  Peter Sherr picked up on this, and noted that the actions in the report fell short of changing the curriculum.  He shared my concerns about Everyday Math and the slow rate of improvement, and wanted to go on record to ensure that the “actions we are taking are the maximum actions we can take.”  He also indicated he was not willing to defer to 2014 for a review.  Dr. Lulow reiterated that the administration has made a commitment “to look at ways to move the timeline forward and not wait until 2014.”  Board Chair Leslie Moriarty also indicated that the Board wants to get a deeper understanding of the transition to Common Core.

Thanks Peter!

Following is a copy of my comments (I left out the Shakespeare quote). 

My objective in making these presentations over the last few months has been to get the Board of Education and the administration to seriously consider accelerating the Mathematics curriculum review, with the end goal of eliminating the Everyday Mathematics program. 

By itself, the stagnation in elementary school performance on the CMT merits attention.  Some schools are doing okay, but some are struggling to make progress, with or without coaches.  However, the decline in performance relative to comparable districts indicates serious issues.  Based on the last five years of data, if DRG A and B, and Greenwich all continue on their trend-line, it will take about 5 years until all DRG A students are at the Proficient level, 7 years until all DRG B students are Proficient,  and 13 years until Greenwich reaches that level.  At the more challenging but more appropriate Goal level, those figures are 10 years for DRG A, 15 years for DRG B and 196 years for Greenwich.  The US is falling behind the world, CT is falling behind the US, and Greenwich is falling behind these districts.  Something must be done now.

I did an unscientific poll on my blog.  I asked parents: If you recognize the issues with Everyday Math, how do you fix them? 13 out of 16 respondents were either tutoring at home, or hiring a tutor, or both.  This was tutoring beyond just helping with homework (which most parents did also).  Greenwich is a competitive place, so I recognize that some of these folks may be tutoring to advance their children.  However, many of those thirteen are just trying to ensure their children get the education they need by filling in the gaps left by Everyday Math.  How do I know?  The parents have told me.  My child goes to Riverside, as do many of the children of these parents.   Think about the schools where the parents may not have the time to tutor, or the money to pay a tutor.  What is this doing to their subgroup performance gap?  For the sake of all of these students, something must be done now. 

I realize that data can be interpreted in many different ways, and my interpretation may suit my goals and the administration’s interpretation may suit their goals.  You are being asked to approve the Math Monitoring Report tonight.  Before you do, ask yourself if you have examined the data, not just read the words.  Think about your interpretation of the data.  Are you comfortable with the analysis and the actions, or are you concerned about the direction our elementary schools are headed?

The Math Monitoring Report is going to reiterate the Administration’s recommendation that the next review be held as scheduled in 2014.  I understand the conflicts with other reviews, and the burden change puts on the teachers.  But I also understand the burden a failing program puts on a child.  Sometimes a parent is helpless to fix that.  The administration and the Board need to consider what can be and should be done.  Perhaps a pilot program with another curriculum can be run with Math ALP classes or at an underperforming school.  Let us not put ourselves in a position where we say, to paraphrase Cassius, “The fault, dear Brutus, was not in our stars, but in ourselves.”  Something must be done now.  Thank you.