Math Adoption Documents
More documents at Scribed from Julian A. They include info on 2015 Math in Focus and several school math waivers. Scroll to the bottom to access other documents.
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.)
Comments
So my guess is that all waivers will be funded.
"Representative Democracy Too Good for the Commissars of Seattle Public Schools" should make a catchy headline...
RE: New math adoption
Dear Wonderful Stevens Families;
Many principals, including myself, expressed concern over the board's decision to disregard the
designated math adoption committee's recommendation of EnVision Math for another program: Math
in Focus. The Executive Directors asked elementary principals, as a bargaining unit, to come to a
consensus on whether to file a waiver. This means that the principals' union would file a waiver on
behalf of all elementary schools in the district.
Friday Stevens staff voted unanimously to support the math adoption committee in filing a waiver, if and
only if, the waiver is filed on behalf of all elementary schools. We feel that continuity across the district
is of paramount importance as well as the validation of the hard work and time the adoption committee
put into their recommendation.
I imagine both EnVision and Math in Focus are very good programs. The math adoption committee
looked long and carefully at all the approved options. The committee was made up of parents, teachers,
district curricular experts and other community members. Stevens staff and community members went
to Douglas Truth and other libraries to give their input as well. After consideration of the programs and
input from community members, the adoption committee felt that EnVision was the best program for
Seattle students.
At this point, I do not know the results of the elementary school votes outside of Stevens and a few
schools within the Central Region. I was originally told a waiver must be filed on June 10th which gave
us very little time to get everything in place. The principals’ union is in the process of drafting a letter of
important questions that we need answers to before we can make a truly informed decision. Because of
that, union leadership is asking the district to delay ordering the Math in Focus materials until we get
the answers we need to ensure a smooth, successful transition to a new program. I will share more
information with the community as soon as I know more. Please do not hesitate to email me with your
thoughts and concerns as well.
Kelley Archer
Principal, Stevens Elementary
-Leaving Stevens
Since when do Ex Directors ever talk to principals/teachers as a "bargaining unit?' That would seem out of the realm of their duties.
But, as well, the union leadership wants a delay? That makes sense.
Where was the principal's union every other time the recommendations of committees, task forces and work groups were disregarded? The hypocrisy is unbelievable.
At this point I am not only sickened by this but suspect that enVision has been ordered already.
-Lacking Leadership
consensus on whether to file a waiver. This means that the principals' union would file a waiver on
behalf of all elementary schools in the district"
I hope cooler heads prevail and Banda gets a hold of this situation.
We deserve so much better.
Leadership seeker
After consultation process, bids, submissions etc, a choice is made. The resulting new practice, or policy, or equipment/tech upgrade might not be want you wanted or believed best but as an employee- at whatever level- you would be expected to implement it and adhere to it anyway. (if you want to keep you job that is). Or resign in protest.
How is it any different and why are these folks act like they are above the rules that everyone else plays by.
real world
That's not a waiver. That is an adoption. Waivers are exception from the adoption.
What th?!?!?! are executive directors/staff thinking here?
Process was followed, the board voted. The union does not get to universally apply for a "waiver" for all schools to adopt an different curriculum. They do not have the authority. They can strike, but they can not overturn board decisions.
If they are so insistent that ALL schools need to have the same curriculum, it is the one that was ADOPTED! If they want to have choice at their schools to have envision, they apply for a waiver for their school, or have supported dual adoption.
Directors McLaren and Peters offered up the dual adoption amendment and they rejected it.
Which is it: one curriculum, or choice? You can't have it both ways.
civics matter
If they just can't live with MIF - do the honorable thing and resign in protest (please!!!). Don't try to hijack a public institution.
real world
Who do executive directors report to? Michael Tolley. The implication is, then, that Michael Tolley is pushing for a blanket waiver for Envision to make an end run around the math adoption.
I strongly doubt that had Envision been adopted we would be seeing shenanigans of this sort. I think that had staff's preferred curriculum been adopted, the waiver process would continue to be onerous.
I am willing to believe that Math in Focus AND Envision have their merits. I think Math in Focus is better, but I can see how someone else might choose Envision.
That said, I don't think staff eagerness to grant a blanket waiver (effectively substituting their preferred curriculum for the one the board voted in) is in any way about husbanding district resources or acting in the best interest of students.
This looks like pure petulant politicking.
Here's what I sent to Banda, Tolley, Heath and school board directors. Please email to the superintendent and board memebers that this is unacceptable.
Dear Superintendent Banda and School Board Directors,
I'm am extremely disturbed that the Executive Directors are encouraging the principal's union to defy the school board vote on the math adoption. Please see letter (below) sent out by the Kelley Archer, principal of Stevens, to his families today. I hope the matter will be resolved and that your staff has the integrity to uphold the school board's decision. This is an embarrassment to the district.
From Steven's Principal Kelley Archer, received today:
RE: New math adoption
Dear Wonderful Stevens Families;
Many principals, including myself, expressed concern over the board's decision to disregard the
designated math adoption committee's recommendation of EnVision Math for another program: Math
in Focus. The Executive Directors asked elementary principals, as a bargaining unit, to come to a
consensus on whether to file a waiver. This means that the principals' union would file a waiver on
behalf of all elementary schools in the district.
Friday Stevens staff voted unanimously to support the math adoption committee in filing a waiver, if and
only if, the waiver is filed on behalf of all elementary schools. We feel that continuity across the district
is of paramount importance as well as the validation of the hard work and time the adoption committee
put into their recommendation.
I imagine both EnVision and Math in Focus are very good programs. The math adoption committee
looked long and carefully at all the approved options. The committee was made up of parents, teachers,
district curricular experts and other community members. Stevens staff and community members went
to Douglas Truth and other libraries to give their input as well. After consideration of the programs and
input from community members, the adoption committee felt that EnVision was the best program for
Seattle students.
At this point, I do not know the results of the elementary school votes outside of Stevens and a few
schools within the Central Region. I was originally told a waiver must be filed on June 10th which gave
us very little time to get everything in place. The principals’ union is in the process of drafting a letter of
important questions that we need answers to before we can make a truly informed decision. Because of
that, union leadership is asking the district to delay ordering the Math in Focus materials until we get
the answers we need to ensure a smooth, successful transition to a new program. I will share more
information with the community as soon as I know more. Please do not hesitate to email me with your
thoughts and concerns as well.
Kelley Archer
Principal, Stevens Elementary
Welcome to the real world, PASS.
Teachers: You just caught a well-deserved break.
WSDWG
The school piloted/trialled several math curriculum last year (including envision) and envision was not chosen. We have been using my math this year though I'm not sure of the length or type of waiver (if any).
I cannot see how Lincoln could possibly join a collective waiver application to do envision when the staff recently TRIALLED and REJECTED this curriculum at OUR school. (Obviously some schools, TM for example, have success with and should be able to keep using it). But it will be obvious that political pressure has been applied to our principal, and that internal politics trumps the best practice for our kids, if our school ends up seeking or supporting this collective waiver.
Waiting
HMHCO.com
Have already written board - what else can we do because this is BEYOND ridiculous at this point
reader47
If the Superintendent tries to get around board approval of a contract by issuing multiple individual PO's for under $250K, that will result in audit findings.
If they went on strike, what would happen? The school administrative assistants could run the school, a head teacher/dept heads would lead the teaching staff, and the T-PEP and PG&E could suck it.
Signed: math counts (the original one)
The actions of the district are irresponsible, and do not reflect those of reasonable and intelligent individuals.
BUT: SPS is now on the hook to do the same for middle school math, high school math, and LA and science.
Autonomy within a subset of approved materials is a good balance between centralization and free-for-all.
OF COURSE it will not be ok at all to allow a "pick" of approved materials in this case but not in the other areas.
Alt Mama
- reality check
Decent governor or on the national stage. But as a local leader? No thanks. Educator? Yes. Politician? No. My .02.
WSDWG
WSDWG
"There are infinite numbers between 0 and 1. There's.1 and .12 and .112 and an infinite collection of others. Of course, there is a bigger infinite set of numbers between 0 and 2, or between 0 and a million. Some infinities are bigger than other infinities. A writer we used to like taught us that. There are days, many of them, when I resent the size of my unbounded set. I want more numbers than I am likely to get, and God, I want more numbers for Augustus Waters than he got. But, Gus, my love, I cannot tell you how thankful I am for our little infinity. I wouldn't trade it for the world. You gave me a forever within the numbered days, and I'm grateful."
John Green sending a beautiful message to Seattle about the infinite possibilities of math, language, connecting and loving.
So much more to math than the banal emphasis on basic skills beloved by MIF boosters.
To infinity and beyond...
For progress
I CCed Rick Anderson at the Weekly (randerson@seattleweekly.com), Dominic Holden at The Stranger (dholden@thestranger.com) and Kyle Stokes at KPLU (kstokes@kplu.org) who reported what is as far as I know the ONLY mention of last week's vote in the local media.
Stokes wrote back to me immediately to ask if I had any info on the events (which I don't, firsthand). I urge you to write to the media, too, and contact Stokes if you have anything solid he can use. I can only think that the editors are more likely to run these stories if they hear that there is a ground-swell of concern.
-----Original Message-----
From: Heath, Shauna L
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2014 9:15 AM
To: Kischner, Gerrit; Anderson, Eric M; Box, Anna M
Cc: Tolley, Michael F; Block, Kae HSubject:
RE: Principal math comments
Gerrit,
We will find a time to meet with you about the data [...].
As far as applying for a waiver,...I would encourage that the innovation focus at a supplemental level and professional development rather than shifts in adopted materials.
That said, all funds will be going toward the purchase of the new materials so there will be no monetary support forwaivers outside of the adoption.
Best,Shauna
from page 230 of http://www.scribd.com/doc/226359818/Math-Adoption-emails
--O
That was directed at FP, in relation to the beautiful but highly irrelevant movie quote.
--O
I hope they will contact Gerrit Kischner at Schmitz Park and the PTA at North Beach for quotes that the district has not paid for waivers previously. Will that suddenly change, or do staff think the PTAs can each come up with many tens of thousands of dollars to pay for waivers at the demand of their puppet principals dancing at the end of Michael Tolley's strings?
This is the biggest SPS story since AT LEAST the selection of Banda, and it needs to be reported in the mainstream media.
Doesn't mean we can't ask questions because that evidence is pretty damning.
I am going to this meeting with bells on. Who to sit across from?
Tolley - hands down.
Having these questions coming from a reporter should make the staff very uncomfortable, I'd think. And deservedly so.
Yes, there is more than the basic skills, but without getting the basic skills first students will be in no position to understand or appreciate more exotic math. It would be like having a piano student play a sonata, before they've learned which keys make which notes.
Dear SPS staff and elected officials,
(Sorry to spam you all but the SPS math adoption has me in a bit of a panic here about the role of elected officials - an issue with wide implications.)
I actually don't have a strong opinion about the actual elementary math materials being considered by SPS.
I do, however, have a strong opinion about representative democracy. My opinion is that we have one, and we should keep it. It appears that although the SPS elected officials made a decision on elementary math materials, unelected officials may be reversing that decision.
I did in fact vote for the school board majority that made the K-5 adoption decision, not because of their position on math but because of my faith in their ability to think independently and stand up for what they believed was best for public education. For years I have watched school boards do 100% of what the unelected administrators wanted, much of which seemed either pointless or antithetical to best practice in public eduction. I had no way of knowing if my vote had any power. I am not surprised the current board chose to take on this issue, because without a doubt, it is the problem for SPS that is EASIEST TO FIX. For a few days last week, I felt the tiny power of my vote, and I don't like having that taken away.
Superintendent Banda, please act in accordance with Washington state law and SPS policy. And please, all elected officials in Washington State should keep an eye on this story.
---
I agree this situation could make for some great investigative reporting. Why ARE they pushing Envision so hard???
Chris S.
Disappointed to see this comment from you. It is the board quartet who undermined the democratic process. Last minute amendments that demolish the recommendations of a thoughtful committee, that convened with full public scrutiny, are at the least disrespectful and detrimental to the public's trust.
There is nothing progressive or democratic in this action or the imposition of the materials selected.
For progress
It's getting old. Why aren't you out here screaming for all the other committees that have been ignored? What are you doing about FACMAC? Are you out there anonymously calling out staff and the Board for ignoring FACMAC recommendations? Those folks were smart and put in loads of time, too.
Nope, I don't think so. You're probably Heath or Tolley posting anonymously to vent your frustrations. You didn't scream about the other committees since your got your way and the Board rubber-stamped your ideas.
Again, even if you feel that way, the Board is the final, legal word on curriculum. Sorry. Change the law, elect other people.
You really don't get it do you? It's been made abundantly clear on this site and others that committees such as MAC are often overridden by the board. MAC was delegated to make a recommendation. Not the final decision. There was no overriding of a democratic process. The people assigned to make the decision MADE THE DECISION! Like it or not, it didn't happen to align with the committee's choice - something that happens time and time again in this school district. Lobby for a different system. I'm sure many would be happy to join you, if past discussions are any indicator.
However, "the public trust" resides with the publically elected board - not a volunteer committee and increasingly, clearly, not the Executive Directors or Supt. of the district.
reader47
GetAGrip
Director McClaren: I understand from vendor there are several schools using EnVM without waiver. Are you thinking these schools will get waivers?
Banda. I don’t think so.
M. Tolley: What was communicated thursday morning is we have an adopted se t of materials, mif. 11 schols currently using, three of which have waivers. Those schools currently using even without waiver if they want to continue to use EnVM, they need to file a waiver. Whether or not it gets approved is another question. The request goes to executive director of schools. We have to seriously consider articulation and effects on mobile students in the region, then a waiver may be denied.
Blandford: Has criteria for approving waivers already been decided.
Tolley: Policy 2020 has five criteria
Blandford: Would you call the approval subjective or objective?
Toelly: Five criteria, schools have to demonstrate the need that school better served by the requested materials.
Peaslee: I was involved in writing the waiver policy. [2012] I made an amendment that added a clause that Superintendent could deny waiver. Intent of policy was that schools using district-adopted materials could request waiver if District adopted material not meeting needs of students. Never intend waiver process to be used as an end-run around adopted curriculum.
Also, 2020 policy requirements for community engage are not specific at all, that is a subjective criterion, so very concerned about that, because we are being flood by emails from parents that something is happening in their building around waivers, but they are not getting asked by principals. Fact is, the way this is being done, in fast track manner, without really serious community engagement is really problematic, because lots of these parents, really happy with mif adoption but now are hearing their principals seeking EnVM waiver.
Thirdly there is no indication that these BLTs requesting waivers have actually looked at MIF, or used MIF. Many haven’t even looked at EnVM. There is a kind of firestorm going here that has nothing to do with making a really well -informed thoughtful decision about instructional materias that will impact every single student in the school. We do need to improve on this policy. Meanwhile I am very concerned that there is an effort to do an end run around the policy. This is an abuse of the policy, not the intent of the policy.
[tbc js]
Peters: purpose of the waiver was for schools for whom adopted curriculum is not suitable, for them to get chance to close achievement gap, get better results for their students, but they haven’t even used the mandated material so this is clear abuse of waiver policy.
Other concern is communities only hearing about this on very short time line, getting lots of S.O.S. emails, “My principal seeming to be doing something without checking in us”, then PASS doing something, this is to subvert the vote of the board. This is a terrible precedent to set. I thank S. Banda for writing his letter to uphold the board decisions
I do feel, S. Banda, you just said that you want to encourage the principals to “consider” taking mif. I have to say "no," they “have” to take MIF. Right now most schools do not qualify based on principles in waiver. I do agree with schools already using EnVM get to continue.
Funding for waivers: has been sporadic and arbitrary, seems like we’re changing the rules all of a sudden in a rush, it’s raising a lot of eyebrows in the community. For unity and strength of district we can’t allow this.
Blandford: I have different interpretation of emails we’ve begun to see. At least some of emails I’ve seen are less about having env or mif, but more about desire to pay attention to process by MAC. Be that as it may, the Board made a decision to not pay attention to that, to overule it, so I think this is opportunity for some principal and some school community. If they have the flexibility to pursue another option, that is what they are doing.
In this room a month ago several principals said this is what would happen. It seemed to me the message we should take is that it would behoove us to listen total.
2nd comment. What is the interpretation of your email Jose, and whether or not principals have clear guidance as to whether or not there is a wiaver process or not, because I hear there is a lot of wiggle room. We need to eliminate wiggle room. Many principals out there are trying to prepare waivers. I want some clarity.
Banda: We listened to some PASS leadership earlier today. We are aware there is a lot of work being done to consult the BLTs, we don’t want them to spend unnecessary time dedicated on that. So I think tomorrow will provide a good opportunity to talk about this. We need to hear from principals, there is a lot of unsettlement around the whole adoption. Our responsibility to hear them out, but also share with them our focus, to come o gether. We have to move forward can continue to have this creating conflict.
Peters. I must correct the record. Stephan, you said we did not pay attention to the process. I beg to differ. We took it very. Seriously. That’s why we brought dual adoption. The principals union gave us strongest reason against dual. Staff gave us many reasons against dual, so we withdrew the dual, had everything to do with board policy. This was not a frivolous decisions. Now we have principals ironically are trying to get a a dual -- the very thing they didn’t want.
[tbc..jcs]
Blandflour: I need to correct your correction. The principal response says both that they don’t want a dual, and they want the MAC recommendation to be respected and adopted. That was a decision for mif. My interpretation is quite different. Our principals were very clear in wanting the recommendation of the MAC to be honored and that has caused this dissention that is in the air right now.
Peaslee. 1st of all I started asking Ron English what are our options, long before there were any disputes. Ron told MAC as well as various Board directs that Board free to adopt any materials reviewed by MAC. We were well within our rights to do what we did. The MAC is advisory. We are under no obligation to follow the MAC. The recommendation of the MAC was not unanimous, didn’t reflect community input, was completely devoid of benchmarking. Our reasoning was very sound.
My thinking just to put it out there: MIF, which is based on singpore math, comes from top math performing nation in world. US is nowhere near the top. I think that it makes no sense to me for us to spend this amount of money and time we spend to adopt a curriculum that is not proven in any manner to budge the achievement gap, to budge the achievement of diverse learners.
When we have opportunity to adopt materials that have taken Singapore to top of the world, those opportunities only comes around every 7 to 10 years. In my mind, our students deserve a world class math curriculum, and we would be doing then an emormous disservice just to give them something just because it costs a little bit less. I don’t consider that frivolous.
McClaren: Lessons learned. I do regret as author of dual adoption amendment, that we did not pursue in depth conversations with staff in development of that amen. early on. There was consultation. We knew Dir. Peaslee was consulting with Ron English, working together we do tend to come together in agreement for betterment of students in district. I plan to be more proactive in future.
Thank you very much.
Peaslee. I want to thank Jose for writing the letter. I received several phone calls thanking you[Jose] for the letter.
[js. end of notes]