Math Adoption Update

From reader Rick B:

Re: the K-5 Math Adoption. Here's a quick process overview and status update from the trenches:

The Math Adoption Committee (MAC) has met three times so far. The SSD website has some basic info and minutes of the first meeting, but not for meeting #2 or meeting #3:

In these meetings, the committee laid the typical process groundwork, developed selection criteria and weighting formula for evaluation, and reviewed the 8 candidate programs. All MAC members are supposed to complete their reviews and submit score sheets this week for tabulation.

A separate questionnaire was created for community feedback, which is on the tables at the JSCEE library, or can be accessed and submitted online from the website above. DEADLINE FOR THIS IS TOMORROW if you still want to weigh in.

The top three programs are to be selected as finalists by Friday the 10th. Additional copies of these finalist programs will be ordered from publishers and distributed to ~5 locations around the city for formal public review and comment during the month of March.

Final selection of a single program will take place by the end of March, to be submitted to the SB for introduction Apr 23rd and approval May 7th.

Comments

Greg Linden said…
The criteria for selection surprised me. It does not appear to be which one will teach math most effectively (measured by some objective measurement like math test scores) or information from other districts showing which of these curriculum has yielded measurable improvements in student math performance. Am I alone in being surprised by that?
1/8/14, 7:50 AM
Benjamin Leis said…
@Greg - where did you find the selection criteria?

The one I saw @http://www.seattleschools.org/modules/groups/homepagefiles/cms/1583136/File/Policies/Board/series2000/2015.pdf?

has a bullet point about "Be based on best practices and research including benchmarking from similar districts and other sources"

Given the loose relationship between policy and practice the district follows that doesn't necessarily mean the policy will be honored of course but its at least part of the formal description.

Ben
1/8/14, 9:48 AM
Linh-Co said…
The criteria for selection was drafted with CCSS in mind. If you look at the initial screening tool's first two criteria, they are based on whether 3/4 of the textbook's focus is on the CCSS (Common Core State Standards) major work for each grade and whether the materials will assess this major work.

There is no question in my mind that CCSS will drive the adoption selection. This may be a downfall for JUMP math since it does not have a completed CCSS alignment for the primary grades until September. Too bad for JUMP math since it has all the necessary mathematical content and a logical scope and sequence.
1/8/14, 11:36 AM
Anonymous said…
Too bad about JUMP. It's great stuff I have to say.

-FedMomof2
1/8/14, 2:49 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Tuesday Open Thread

The speaker list is up for the Board meeting tomorrow; not as packed as I thought with just four people on the waitlist. The majority of the speakers are speaking on high school boundaries (with several wanting to talk about Ballard High). There are only three of us speaking about the Green Dot resolution asking the City to not grant the zoning departures that Green Dot has requested.  It's me, long-time watchdog, Chris Jackins, and the head of the Washington State Charter Schools Association, Patrick D'Amelio.  (I knew Mr. D'Amelio when he headed the Alliance for Education and Big Brothers and Big Sisters; he's a stand-up guy.)
Read more

Breaking It Down: Where the District Might Close Schools

Update 2: an absolutely fabulous interactive map made by parent Beth Day (@thebethocracy on Twitter - she covers Board meetings and is fun to read).   end of update    Update 1: Mea culpa, I did indeed get Decatur and Thornton Creek mixed up. Thanks to all for the correction. end of update   I suspect some who read this post will be irate. Why do this? Because the district seems very hellbent on this effort with no oversight skid marks from the Board.    To clearly state - I do not believe that closing 20 schools is a good idea. I think they hit on 20 because they thought it might bring in the most savings. But the jury is still out on the savings because the district has not shown its work nor its data. I suspect closing schools and THEN leasing/renting them is the big plan but that means the district really has to keep the buildings up.   But this district, with its happy talk about "well-resourced schools" is NOT acknowledging the pain and yes, grief, that is to come fro
Read more

MEETING CANCELED - Hey Kids, A Meeting with Three(!) Seattle Schools Board Directors

 Update 2: So I have seen a message from President Liza Rankin on why she, Director Evan Briggs, and Director Michelle Sarju backed out of this meeting.  In a nutshell: - She says there was no organization to the meeting which is just not true. They had a moderator lined up and naturally the board members could have set parameters for what to discuss, length of meeting, etc. All that was fleshed out. - She also claimed that if the meeting was PTA sponsored, they needed to have liability insurance to use the school space. Hello? PTAs use school space all the time and know they have to have this insurance.  - She seems to be worried about the Open Public Meetings law. Look, if she has a meeting in a school building on a non-personnel topic, it should be an open meeting. It appears that Rankin is trying, over and over, to narrow the window of access that parents have to Board members. She even says in her message - "...with decisions made in public." Hmmm - She also says that th
Read more