Onto the next amendment to adopt Math in Focus. McLaren read the amendment (which was quite lengthy.)
Staff to talk about issues around costs for Math in Focus. $5.6M versus some lower cost for enVision.
Blanford - what does that money cover?
Staff - includes 1-year costs, and range for 7 years.
This completes the amendment issues (there was a blank place for the costs of Math in Focus).
Peters - I respect the work and the members of the Math Adoption committee. She said Board policy, though, is compelling. She said Singapore "inspired" Common Core Standards. Cited WAC for Board selection of instructional materials.
Does not believe in enVision with a number of concerns. Documents by staff mention that enVision is text intensive. But when language is too heavily embedded, it becomes more difficult for all students but especially ELL students. Need clear and flexible curriculum. Reliance on technology in enVision (in licensing agreements), only and best be used on Smart Board. (She acknowledged all curriculum materials are becoming more tech intensive.)
Why Math in Focus? Clarity (benchmarked internationally), Highline is using and now moving on to using for 6th grade and has a high number of children F/RL and of color. Must address issues of equity. Materials favored by community. Second highest rated by teachers.
About costs - not sure we've had total clarity. Math in Focus WILL cost more. Is this a priority? Is it worth it for our students? Is it doable? Will it prepare them for middle and high school math? Can't be penny-wise and pound foolish. Earlier reports on costs for Math in Focus were not accurate. Not sure there as been an apples to apples comparison between the two.
Per pupil is about $30 for Math in Focus and $20 for enVision. PD estimates for MinF seem overestimated. We have some educators already using it and we can be resourceful.
Look at elements in costs. Do we need almost $1M in manipulatives? She doesn't think that is so.
We must respect budget but take care of our children.
End of Peters statement.
McLaren - Peters has covered the many facets of MinF. We consider it to be best choice for district. Want to emphasis access to students who have language difficulties. I look at textbooks as a teacher, looking at both curriculum side by side is where you see the differences and truly a picture is worth a thousand words. Simple text that provokes curiosity is what is in MinF. It's a simpler approach. Concrete and visual. Gives students "equal opportunity" to grasp content.
enVision is well-regarded but I cannot in good conscience vote for it because it is so text-heavy. Other teachers working with MinF say it is powerful to have a text that is easy to grasp.
Important to emphasis that Schmitz Park was at 50th percentile up to 90th percentile. Kept up scores even as population grew quickly. Quality of math was so apparent that parents were trying to move in that area.
(My observation - only two Board members - save Peters - seems to be listening to McLaren. That's Peaslee and Patu. I'm going off Board members looking at screens and body language. Ditto on the Superintendent. Okay now Carr and Blanford are doing what you would call "active listening.")
Spoke of teachers who had found "ways" to not use Discovery and try more Singapore-like math.
Wanted to acknowledge staff and her lack of belief in their "good faith." She apologized and said it was a big flow of information and jumped to conclusions. "communicate, check your facts" is my lesson.
Powerpoint given. Board has it but, of course, we don't have a copy. I'll try to get one. Take that back, I believe this PP is embedded in this action item. Projected at 28,000 student use.
Looks like MIF vendor reduced PD from 8 to 4 days (enVision is one, I believe - he is moving fast). One day is free but other days are $490K per day.
So enVision is about $3.6M (which is confusing to me because Shaun Heath told MAC - and I was there - that they had $2M for math adoption).
MIF about $7.6M over life of adoption , nearly $4M more than enVision. Works out to about $60K per school. Cost per student (flashed by, sorry). His cost per student is $40 for MIF and $20 for enVision. (Peters said it was $30 for MIF so there's a big disagreement there.)
Charles Wright, Deputy Super, on waivers. MIF or Singapore currently used by 4 schools, enVision by 11 schools. Some with approved waivers, some not. "Policy will be applied the same regardless of which program is selected as the approved curriculum. (Good question: was the cost for those school subtracted by either curriculum?) Mr. Wright was just pressed into service so yes, his remarks do wander.
How to close budget gap if MIF? Lengthy list that I had trouble following.
(Very frustrating when both staff and Board will NOT speak into the microphones.)
Don't have a dedicated recruitment person. (Aside here, I think a recruitment person is more important than any project management.) He also said there was no one who reviews invoices. (What?!?) No one to go after private grants, either.
Interesting - fewer staff here than usual. I always wondered why staff had to line the walls at Board meetings.
Special Education Department, 5 supervisors for regional support and something about those costs.