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.

Math Monitoring Report Comments - Part 3

This is the third of four parts of my comments on the Math Monitoring Report.  More of the same in this part of the Report: poor analysis, bad conclusions.  So I came up with my own analysis, which indicates that the gap  is shrinking between the Special Education, Hispanic, Black, English Language Learners ("ELL"), and Free/Reduced Lunch ("FRL") subgroups and the overall district percentage for students reaching the Goal level.  This is good news.  The bad news is it will take forever (forever means after the current second graders graduate) to actually close the gaps.  We don't need incremental change.  We need radical change.  Ditch Everyday Math now.

One other interesting (?) point: Table Seven in the Report is titled "Connecticut Academic Performance Test - Five Year Trends (%)."  The Table is on page 24.  The interesting point is that it only covers four school years!

Math Monitoring Report Comments - Part 2

This is the second of four parts of my comments on the Math Monitoring Report.  This post highlights the most egregious data error and resulting conclusion.  In comparing Greenwich to other districts (called DRG A and DRG B), the report uses incorrect data and concludes that the results have “shown continuous improvement over the five year period” and as “establishing five year highs in 2011 in the percentage of students at Advanced, Goal…”  This is not the case for our elementary school results.  The report needs to be fixed, and the conclusions redrawn to recognize the drop in performance.  Only then can we start addressing the problems.

MathAlive!

Looking for something to do with the kids over spring break?  The Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C. is hosting an exhibition exploring the world of mathematics.  It is targeted at 3-8 grades, and will run from 10 March – 3 June 2012.  For additional information, see:

http://www.evergreenexhibitions.com/exhibits/mathalive/about.asp

The exhibition is designed to answer the age-old question: “Will I ever use all this math they’re teaching us?”

If your kids say “we will only use 10% of the math they teach us,” tell them they can stop taking math when they can tell you which 10%!

Math Monitoring Report Comments - Part 1

Following is my review of the Math Monitoring Report.   You can read the Report at:

http://www.greenwichschools.org/uploaded/district/Board_of_Education/meeting_materials/2011-12_meetings/1-5-12_meeting/010512_1st_Reading_E003_MR_Mathematics_w_CS.pdf

I will break my comments into several parts.

______________________________________________________________

I reviewed the Greenwich Public Schools Monitoring Report – Student Achievement: Mathematics for January 5, 2012.  Comments are a mix of (1) data observations, (2) questions for clarification, and (3) editorial comments which serve to extend the analysis.  All data used is either from the report itself or from data downloaded from CSDE public data on www.cmtreports.com, www.ctreports.com, or http://solutions1.emetric.net/cmtpublic/Index.aspx.

I have refrained from structural or grammatical comments, except for those structural suggestions noted in the last paragraphs. 

I focused my review on items pertaining to grades 3-5, with a few comments pertaining to grades 6-8 where the data or analysis overlap with grades 3-5.  I only reviewed data for Goal and Advanced levels, and have excluded analysis of items relating to the Proficient level, given that the Connecticut CMT Proficient level is essentially equivalent to the NAEP Basic level for fourth grade (and Below Basic for eighth grade).  For a further discussion of this, please see: http://greenwichmath.blogspot.com/2011/11/what-do-standardized-tests-really-mean.html.  One can debate this, but my conclusion is that being “CT Proficient” is not going to allow you to succeed in college level mathematics.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

CMT – Elementary

1.    Based on the referenced Table 1, the percentage of students at Advanced did increase 0.3%, but students at Goal dropped 0.4% (i.e., it did not “remain.. level”).

2.    Cos Cob percentages at Advanced and Goal increased from 2009-10 to 2010-11, but are still below highs reached in 2008-09.  Julian Curtiss percentages at Advanced increased from 2009-10 to 2010-11, but remain below levels reached from 2006-07 to 2008-09.  Students at Goal actually dropped from 79.0% to 75.5%.  Parkway percentages at Advanced increased from 2009-10 to 2010-11, but remain below levels reached from 2006-07 to 2008-09.  Students at Goal actually dropped from 84.2% to 79.8%.  These do not appear to be “Particularly strong gains.”

3.    Dundee percentages peaked in 2006-2007 and have shown a decline since, reaching a new low for both Advanced and Goal in 2010-2011.  Similarly, Glenville peaked in 2008-09 and reached lows for the five reported years in 2010-2011.

ACCOMPLISHMENTS/HIGHLIGHTS 2010-2011

1.    Elementary Advanced and Goal percentages reference Table 1, but use data from Table 2 (page 38).  The quoted percentages (Advanced – 49.2% and Goal – 81.8%) appear to refer to grades 3-8, not 3-5 (see Table 2).

2.    Using data from Table 1, Goal percentages are trending downward since a peak in 2006-7 at 81.0%, and actually dropped from 80.8% to 80.4% over the last year.  Advanced percentages appear to have risen 0.3%, but are still down 0.9% from the 2008-09 peak (see further discussion below).  Neither Advanced nor Goal percentages reached five year highs in 2010-11.

Report from the Board of Education Meeting, 5 Jan 2010

I attended the Board of Education work session on Thursday evening.  A work session does not permit the general public to comment, so I had to keep my mouth shut.  The Board reviewed the Math Monitoring Report with the administration for about an hour. 

The Board asked several excellent questions, but also missed the opportunity to dig into the report to challenge conclusions the administration drew based on faulty data (see my next post), and to highlight some of the real negative trends in the data.  Even worse, by not questioning the data, the Board may accept a report which does not accurately portray the true state of our elementary school math achievement.  You can’t turn around a bad situation when you don’t think it is a bad situation.  You have to admit you have a problem before you can tackle it.  And (wait for it) Houston, we have a problem!

Back to the Board (of Education)

Tomorrow night, 5 January, at 7:00 PM, is a Board of Education work session at which the Board will be conducting the first reading of Monitoring Report E-003, Mathematics for school year 2010-2011.  A copy of the document can be found at:

http://www.greenwichschools.org/uploaded/district/Board_of_Education/meeting_materials/2011-12_meetings/1-5-12_meeting/010512_1st_Reading_E003_MR_Mathematics_w_CS.pdf

Reiterating the recommendation made during the budget review, the administration again wants to stick to the schedule to do a math curriculum review in 2014:

“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 the3 (sic) district’s definition of mathematically proficient.”

You know my view: any delay will place our children at a disadvantage.

While the Monitoring Report does provide some useful data and a few insights, the parts I focused on (elementary school grades) contained data errors and misleading assertions.  The action items, meant to address the Management Issues and set the tone for improvements, were nebulous at best or lacking altogether. 

And if you are thinking that the actions items would be contained in the Strategic Improvement Plans for each elementary school, just try to find the word Math in any of these plans (at least what is posted on the internet).  Five of the schools haven’t even bothered to post their SIP!

But hey, it is only the first reading.  Maybe they will revise it to be a useful document.  What are the odds of that?

Happy New Year