Let's Talk Math
From contributor, Ann Donovan:
While the teacher negotiations are at the forefront of our minds,
another school year is upon us and academic concerns are also important.
Several readers have requested this new thread about the Seattle
District's mathematics adoption this school year and this thread should
allow for a free discussion of the issues.
Some of the themes that have been coming up recently include:
* What training and support have Seattle educators have in support of MiF?
* What activities are District staff taking in support or to undermine MiF adoption?
* What gaps are being seen between the State adopted Common Core Standards and MiF?
* What changes have been observed in math performance in the District?
* What is happening with mathematics in the middle and high school levels?
Editor's note: I believe the Board is becoming aware that all is not well with the rollout of Math in Focus. However, if you have concerns, please write to them at:
SPSDirectors@seattleschools.com
Comments
http://www.corestandards.org/Math/Practice/
Is this what the District is trying to address in making changes to the MIF pacing and coverage? Is it being done with good intentions and inadvertently sabotaging the proper coverage and sequencing of MIF? Or are they really trying to undermine the MIF adoption? It feels like a case of one step forward (math adoption) and two steps back (messing with the implementation).
-math hopeless
Elementary mom
It's coming
https://garyrubinstein.wordpress.com/2015/05/19/you-reeka-math/
"You Reeka Math," by Gary Rubenstein (Eureka math is another name for EngageNY)
-math hopeless
- GE parent
Are we starting over ? I would like to hear an explanation from both Burke and Peters on this.
Math Parent
BT Mom
Unfortunately, many teachers are fond of discovery type math, which spends lots of time figuring out the “why” of math problems. Many of us from “Where’s the Math?” think this is a waste of time and the reason so many students get placed into remedial math in college. The former elementary Everyday Math textbooks were especially criticized, with no examples for students to follow. It was the classic example of discovery math.
Rick Burke is from the “Where’s the Math?” group and he will bring better curricula into middle and high schools. Sue Peters and Marty McLaren also understand how confusing discovery math is and would work hard to replace it in the upper grades.
S parent
S parent of 2
-HS Parent
HF
We use walk to math so I would think whole group instruction would be doable - but what do I know?
Someone needs to get off the dime at the District level and train elementary teachers in the MiF/Singapore system. Who is in charge of training and what is the budget? I rarely see MiF course offerings from the Math Dept. It is as if they are trying to kill the adoption before it takes hold (at the expense of students). That's a bummer. Our students are really enjoying MiF now that we are focusing on Algebraic Thinking.
"The complaint we heard about Math in Focus at our school last year was that it requires whole group instruction."
Whole group instruction actually works, when teachers have been correctly trained in how to do it. Look at this Seattle Times article on Gildo Rey HERE.
Even UW education guru Dr. Elham Kazemi seems to be pushing some whole group instruction at Lakeridge in Renton.
See Times article HERE.
More on the Gildo Rey scores and SPS scores coming soon.
The big question is why the focus on Scope and Sequence alignment rather than on the details of effective efficient instruction?
"Are we starting over?"
Who knows? I sure don't but check the data in the following comment coming below this one.
Something good may be happening if it is allowed to happen.
Highline adopted MiF and showed good improvement until Dr Enfield and her crew began meddling and things went downhill. The Math test data from Highline shows it.
-- Dan Dempsey
The data is calculated from pass rates and looking at the difference above or below the average pass rate for all the students in the state.
Note: at Grades 4 and 5 in the first year of MiF, Seattle students produced the greatest positive difference ever. Greater than in any WASL math year or in any MSP math year.
Even though SPS scores were best ever, I am writing
Why not do what is known to work?
because there is huge room for improvement as Gildo Rey elementary school shows.
SBAC Math scores for Seattle's Math in Focus adoption = Good News
-- Dan Dempsey
The Scope and Sequence has been updated (from the initial one I complained about). It now references more MIF materials. Depending on the grade level, it is still a little convoluted. Some upper grade levels at my school still think the sequence is not right mathematically and the reasoning for the sequence is not based on math as much as what the math dept think kids might enjoy learning about first. Some grade levels are still needing to hop around from chapter to chapter, but at least it is MIF instead of two or three other curriculums. My personal feeling it is still a work in progress. It's better, but still not there yet.
The reasoning for the district writing their own curriculum is that MIF didn't completely align with the Common Core. That's true. But most teachers I know just skipped the parts that weren't aligned to Common Core and focused on the parts that did align to Common Core; we are professionals after all. It's not rocket science to figure out what parts aligned and what parts didn't. All the district had to do was send something out saying skip these chapters at your grade level since they don't align to Common Core.
MIF is a different type of curriculum. I agree with Mid-Southend Teacher. We just barely got started using MIF and they are already trying to mess with it. I think the district should be providing more training on how to understand and use the curriculum, especially bar modeling. My understanding is that one of the things that makes Singapore Math such a good curriculum is the how well they train their teachers in really understanding and teaching mathematical concepts. I get the Univ of Wa has a different approach, but we bought the MIF curriculum.
At the end of the day my main issue is that we should be allowed to use the MIF curriculum as it is. I don't even think we should be jumping around chapters. The MIF sequence works great for my grade level. I think that the district adopted a curriculum and we should use it.
Frustrated Math
What leads anyone to believe that local district tinkerers will improve anything in MiF as written?
What leads anyone to believe that the net effect of math Scope and Sequence modification will maximize any student's learning?
The district math leadership should be assisting teachers to maximize each student's learning but instead too often the leadership does not do so.
It is interesting examining the history of the SPS Everyday Math implementation. First fidelity of implementation was demanded and there was little improvement even with greatly increased instructional time. When the district gave teachers more latitude the larger improvements occurred.
Now with MiF are we seeing a return to fidelity of implementation? But in this situation not fidelity to the publisher's plan but rather District Math Leaders ideas on what should happen.
MiF in Highline has already gone to hell in a hand-basket as digital learning is emphasized. There is a finite amount of time in a day and a finite amount of energy in students and teachers .... and Highline is not focusing that energy on MiF and efficient effective instruction and the results show it.
Consider Highline's Midway Elementary and Auburn's Gildo Rey
demographically those schools are very similar.
Test score differentials on SBAC in 2015.
Gildo Rey:
Grade 3: +9.30% ;; Grade 4: +12.60% ;; Grade 5: +15.40%
Midway:
Grade 3: -13.00% ;; Grade 4: -27.50% ;; Grade 5: -16.90%
Wonder why the Highline School Board fails to ask Dr. Enfield about those numbers?
Let's not allow this to happen in Seattle. We sure need to improve instruction for educationally disadvantaged learners, rather than play political district office games.
====================
This entire system is upside down. Teachers and individual schools need to be major decision-makers for they are the trained professionals making the day to day minute to minute instructional decisions in the classroom.
-- Dan Dempsey
TestingIsRuiningEducation
Frustrated Math
K Everyday Math
1 ReThink Math + 'homebrew'
2 My Math
3 Math In Focus (aka Singapore Math)
4 Glencoe Math
Math instruction in kindergarten was atrocious.
Math in 1st grade was FANTASTIC! The teachers collaborated and seemed to be allowed to go 'off roading'. It was the BEST math year EVER! The power and prowess of those teachers flourished. Excellent instruction, logical sequence, supporting development of skills, critical thinking, abstract reasoning and mastery of basic operations. Nailed it! It involved both 'differentiation' and whole group instruction.
Then, 2nd grade. Math tanked. "My Math". I couldn't believe how low it was. It was like taking a big step back. Not the wonderful teacher's fault! It was the book she was required to teach from. Incredibly low expectations. Shockingly low. A lot of jangly pictures, crazy colors, and distracting, multiple fonts. It was common core aligned, or so said the text book. Teachers supplemented with Singapore Math, especially around geometry.
Then, 3rd grade. MIF. It was solid. Clear. Challenging stretches were provided (MiF has a suite of materials; text book, work book, problem book, extra challenge book). Seemed like the staff could have benefited with some additional professional development around bar modelling, but it was fine.
Now, 4th grade. Middle school math: using Glencoe. I really, really like it! I hope the district adopts this. Clear, logical, lots of direct instruction and detailed examples, good practice, good stretches.
As SPS staff (Tolley, Heath) were clear during the Board Action Report process that there must only be 1 text book so that every child in every class in every school was locked-step aligned (*alignment, the new dirty word)so that those mobile students could easily switch schools and be exposed to a consistent experience, this re-engineering of math texts after the fact seems like more sour grapes. Recall, that after the Board adopted MiF, there was that infamous email that went out from JSCEE to the principals that was basically sedition: it egged on the principals to 'get a waiver' to go with enVision. Banda's hand was forced and he had to put a stop to that. The waiver process is a thoughtful and intentional process, it was not a quickie autocratic thing, nor it is a funded thing either. So here we are, with MiF for the whole district for elementary math, in year 2, and JSCEE itching to mess with it. No surprise there. What would it be like if the District just had the teachers teach MiF, in chapter order, as presented, with additional materials as thought to be helpful by the actual teachers? How about we try that? What would it be like if JSCEE didn't mess with our teachers?
Middle school math CMP2 is awful. That is why Hamilton just announced they have 'redone' the curriculum. That is why JAMS relies on other materials. That is why Mercer has gone off on their own to teach their kids, and has reaped extreme success for so many, many years.
So the district has no money for decent texts for middle school math. That's what Dr. Nyland has said. I guess he is good with how things are? Then what do they have money for? What is the priority? They seem to have money for 'change management'. And preschool. And so many other things. But when it comes to actual K-12 kids, not so much.
Teachers Rock (con't below)
This is not a problem money can fix: the educators in charge (Nyland, Banda before him) don't see the value of teaching kids, if they fail to have their breath knocked out of them when they see kids stuck using texts that will risk limiting their futures. Seems like these are not educators who share the same priorities as me. How long has Mercer been doing what it is doing? Without the District saying, yes, let's replicate that success and support kids everywhere else too?! By the same token, how much evidence does the district need to have to see that a better bell time for teens helps them learn, succeed, stay alive? And yet, the district won't do that either, but yet this same district is happy to demand at the last minute kids get a half hour longer day without any evidence that will move the needle on achievement?
With the current team at the helm, money won't solve any problems, because the people in charge seem kind of crazy to me. Giving them more money would be like pissing in the wind. They would probably just hire a bunch more consultants. Not actual teachers. Until we have a board full of Sue Peters types, who are matched with a similarly committed, talented, sincere, capable, hard working, and honest Superintendent, there is simply no hope.
Math is symptomatic of the larger, more pervasive problem. The grown-ups in charge have messed up priorities. So they continually get in the way, make things harder, add complexity, and sandbag common sense. There are many beneath the Supe who are smart and hardworking, but they're not in charge.
Anyway, MiF can work really well and middle school math is an emergency because it is dooming children.
Teachers Rock
Blindly following orthodoxy never leads to good things.
Common Core, or rather, the assiduously slavish micro-worship of its every essence seems like the problem. Don't you think folks in Singapore are doing a great job producing solid math minds? Yet, they do so without Common Core, but with Singapore materials? Go figure.
The question should not be, how well does it align to Common Core; the question should be, how well does it teach kids math.
Ah, if only.
How I miss common sense.
Reminds me of that old adage, "Surgery was a grand success! Patient dead, though."
Teachers Rock.
I did the whole program because I thought it was age appropriate and because my kids liked it. I just don't understand how a group of teachers and two math specialists(?) can be so quick to revise a program that I would expect has been vetted and tested and that is focused on procedure over process. That group should be offering PD that helps educators teach it. As for the sequence, I trust MIF before I trust the group that wants to change it. If they want to leave out units, just let me know which ones. Keep it simple.
Besides, wasn't common core created by a group that included a lot of non-math specialists and corporate bureaucrats? Why this loyalty to common core over a proven math curriculum.
Thank you frustrated math teacher for bringing this to light and perhaps stopping this repeated manipulation of our curriculi. A good place to save money is by stopping all this micro-managing by people who are getting paid to make constant often ill-conceived changes to everything!
Without data all anyone has is merely an opinion. Unfortunately those unfounded math ed opinions keep intruding on sanity.
Teachers Rock stated:
" So here we are, with MiF for the whole district for elementary math, in year 2, and JSCEE itching to mess with it. No surprise there. What would it be like if the District just had the teachers teach MiF, in chapter order, as presented, with additional materials as thought to be helpful by the actual teachers? How about we try that? What would it be like if JSCEE didn't mess with our teachers?"
There is a considerable amount of dysfunction originating from those with Math Education Degrees, often pushing only their opinions as justification for particular changes. Note: Math program manager Anna Box has a BS in Math Education and a Masters in Math Education.
So would Ms. Box care to answer the questions of Teachers Rock?
"What would it be like if the District just had the teachers teach MiF, in chapter order," and "What would it be like if JSCEE didn't mess with our teachers?"
Given the previous near revolt against the MiF math adoption under Banda by District Math experts at odds with Board leadership, are these actions to heavily modify MiF actually sedition?
Of extreme importance in Singapore Math Primary Edition or in Math in Focus is the Bar Model. It is shocking to think that Ms. Box was devoting resources to Common Core alignment and introducing non-MiF materials rather than sticking with MiF as written and focusing resources on Professional Development dedicated to understanding Bar Modeling. Does Ms. Box understand MiF or is she just for changing it?
It takes time and effort to learn math. Students need adequate instruction and adequate time in the adopted MiF materials to maximize their learning. It is difficult to progress in Singapore Math above grade 3 without a good understanding of the Bar Model. In far too many instances the SPS has failed to present students, especially disadvantaged learners, with the opportunity to maximize their learning.
I challenge Ms. Box to review those results from Gildo Rey (82% Low Income and 42% Bilingual) and tell us how any plan of hers will get us to Gildo Rey results. Does this district have any real plan to reduce or eliminate the achievement or opportunity gap? If so she should share it.
Test score differentials on SBAC in 2015.
Gildo Rey:
Grade 3: +9.30% ;; Grade 4: +12.60% ;; Grade 5: +15.40%
SPS averages using MiF were the best ever in 2015:
Grade 3: +7.20% ;; Grade 4: +9.40% ;; Grade 5: +7.90%
SPS Low Income pass rate differentials =>
Grade 3: -13.70% ;; Grade 4: -12.90% ;; Grade 5: -15.10%
One last question:
Why not do what is known to work?
It is really not that difficult if we focus on achievement and provide each student with the opportunity to maximize their learning.
"To improve a system requires the intelligent application of relevant data"
-- W. Edwards Deming (1900-1993)
The online instructor, Anni Stipek, lives near Tacoma.
Singapore Math Strategies: Model Drawing for Grades 1-6
Singapore Math: Number Sense and Computational Strategies
Singapore Math Strategies: Advanced Model Drawing for Grades 6-9
I took these three courses when I was in Nevada as part of White Pine County School District's Professional Development for those teaching Singapore math. The district paid $85 each for these "ed2go" classes through Feather River College in Quincy, California.
The courses were more like an informative class than heavy duty academics. I do not think they counted for college credit. The elementary teachers found them worthwhile in coming to a better understanding of how bar modeling works. They liked the classes because they were informative and not so time consuming that they would ruin your life during the school year. Most teachers took two classes because that was all the district would pay for.
-- Dan Dempsey
http://www.edreports.org/files/series/publisher-response/digits_response.pdf
Read Pearson's response in it's entirety. It touches on so many of the issues of standards vs curriculum.
We now have stronger K-5 math materials, but lower standards (20028 WA State Math Standards are considered better than CCSS-M), and SPS wants to bring the curriculum down to the level of the standards?
-math hopeless
I was so disappointed. The training was mainly on using counting jars, math trays, and number talks. When the question came up how to integrate these strategies into MIF. It was clear that the teachers they were spotlighting for using these strategies in their classroom either weren't using MIF or were using it minimally.
I have nothing against the strategies they were espousing. Most kindergarten teachers use counting jars or some similar version. It's kindergarten; we count ALOT! Number talks are great. Many teachers I know use number talks. Math trays is just a way to organize math games. I have a different way to organize my math games for kids to use, but math trays is fine.
My issue is that I learned nothing about how to differentiate MIF for advanced learners and nothing about teaching math to advanced learners. It was all strategies and little content beyond the suggestion to have advanced learners use higher numbers when counting.
Teach K
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2015/03/18/review-of-math-programs-comes-under-fire.html
MIF did not meet the EdReports alignment criteria, but then you realize that most math programs did not, and were downgraded if they assessed content from future grades, among other things. If districts were to rate math programs as EdReports has, they could pass up some strong math programs.
-math hopeless
In selecting programs for implementing the "A" rated 2008 WA Math standards it was all done by alignment. It had zero to do with whether the texts were teachable or could be effective as there was no field testing used. Eventually one aligned text was tossed because it was found to be Mathematically Unsound.
Singapore Math Primary Edition was the lowest rated text for alignment as it presented the topics in many cases before the year suggested by a particular standard.
Fact: Craig Parsley at Schmitz Park used this lowest rated Singapore text and those 5th graders tested at #3 out of 1000+ schools in annual WA math testing. Carla Santorno installed Everyday Math and Schmitz Park resisted. Most administrators are more in love with uniformity than better results.
Melissa is correct about some states had better standards. The CCSS are not internationally competitive standards. The standards are one-size fits-all standards and so can't be top notch. The actions of failing to use the CCSS as a general guide and instead discouraging the presentation of topics before the CCSS advised grade level is a recipe for "dumbing down".
Tom Loveless points out that if CCSS-M is followed in k-4 there will be way too much material to cover effectively in grades 5-8.
===============
So as others have recommended: Ditch CCSS dictates.
Let us demand a return of local control to our districts and individual schools. Urgently needed: teachers teaching to a room of students instead of running test prep.
In fact I would go further with a return to teachers using school developed and modified effective practices to teach students rather than being subjected to the blanket uniformity of supposed "best practices" mandated by District level administrators for test prep.
-- Dan Dempsey
Larry Nyland is aware of how the math wrangling went down and the controversy surrounding "recommended" texts.
-- Dan Dempsey
-crackers
TS
Just saying
That is the problem. We are all used to process. It takes time and effort to move to procedure. Actually, it is easier now that I get it myself. I quit worrying about all the process, let it go, and really finally worked on procedure. I am willing to give a try. Too soon to give up. Process is so much easier to teach! Teachers have to totally understand the math in order to embed the process while teaching the procedure.
Please, let me learn it before you all start changing it.
I taught in the White Pine County School District in Nevada. Before I got there they had adopted Singapore Math Primary Edition and done virtually no professional development for teachers. It was a huge mess and likely remains so. The SBAC testing completely failed in most of NV 2014-2015 so hard to tell.
WPCSD "mandated" Singapore materials through grade 8.
#1 .. Singapore Math (the real one) is hard to implement above grade 3. Students need the knowledge of what happened in earlier grades. Teachers also need knowledge of the earlier grades material. This produced an enormous mess.
#2 .. Many teachers simply gave up and (sort of secretly or not) went back to whatever book they had used previously (could have been from either of two different publishers)
#3 .. In fall 2013 .. the District decided some PD was necessary and had periodic meetings and paid for teachers to take two online Singapore Math courses. I linked to those on 9/19 above.
#4 .. In fall 2013 .. the District mandated that everyone "really" use the Singapore materials.
K-5 teachers found the videos and PD enlightening and took a more positive view on using the materials.
Things still remained a mess as far as any improvement in MAP math scores at White Pine Middle School(6,7,8) even with great increases in instructional time.
I was at Lund K-12 school with 95 students enrolled.
================
I have never really examined MiF
From my experience I would think it would be easier to implement at primary grades and more difficult at grades 4 and 5. Scaffolding might well be the operative word... but if teachers have not been trained in Bar Modeling "Ouch"
I recommend the videos ... I would think that the videos or something similar would have been part of district provided PD.
I was at West Seattle HS (2006-2007) my room adjoined the cafeteria. I got to listen to Carla Santorno and Everyday Math PD on a few afternoons and it was pretty worthless.
From my seat in the bleachers far from the action ...
I question if the district staff has a real commitment to making MiF work.
Is there evidence of an organized plan to deliver the PD required to make it happen?
Is there a plan to effectively deal with the lack of exposure or mastery of previous material for grades 4 and 5 students and teachers.
I would think that perhaps a bit of school reorganization into some 4th 5th grade teachers becoming math specialists at grades 4 and 5 with others not teaching math might be worth looking into.....
====
Considering all of the above and the SPS...
I find SPS test score improvement on the MSP and SBAC over the last 3 years quite an accomplishment ... Good Job by all.
-- Dan Dempsey
"Can anyone here recommend a reference for parents to learn how to do bar modeling?"
Get connected with all those parents and others at
Singaporemath@yahoogroups.com
They will be a great help to you.
-- Dan Dempsey
Crackers- Dan's suggestion is good about parents learning bar modeling. Here are some other ideas. MIF has an online reference book. I believe all kids, above k, were given online access. Last year I saw some different parent trainings on bar modeling. If I see them this year I'll post them in an open thread. Math n Stuff on Roosevelt is always my go to for these types of things. They often know what is going on in terms of resources in the community or resources you can buy at their store. Finally, I would go online. It's amazing to me how many helpful you-tube videos there are on math. Kahn Academy is a great math source. I don't know what they have on bar modeling.
Teacher
SPS 3rd grade math SBAC
Other grades have a similar pattern, with a spike of high scores at the upper end.
For comparison, the 3rd grade MSP score distribution:
SPS 3rd grade math MSP
And statewide SBAC results:
WA State 3rd grade math SBAC
Is SBAC an appropriate AL qualifier if it has a clear ceiling?
It takes work
A good drawing can often solve problems that others might use a system of simultaneous equations to solve.
-- Dan Dempsey
The MiF edition adopted was the Common Core edition. So what do Anna Box and company find that needs to be removed or supplemented?
I would hope that MiF presents some topics earlier in grades k-4 than CCSS as that pace is absurdly slow and would result in needing to cover too much in grades 5-8.
I am just really skeptical that the publisher's text needs changes from SPS Staff. Would the effort need to be placed on teaching teachers how to teach the material.
Does the SPS have difficulty because of trying to make MiF happen in grades 4 & 5 when students have had no previous MiF exposure?
-- Dan Dempsey
@Math Parent,there was no coup d'etat with Sue Peters and Rick Burke. That's inflammatory and not accurate. Sue Peters and the others on the Board used evidence (gasp) of what works (see all Dan Dempsey posts) and advocated for what was truly in the best interest of students. The District had been trying to achieve their agenda by figuring out ways to populate the math selection committee with people favorable to their POV. That committee came to the conclusion that more than one text would be Common Core aligned and MiF was one of them. So even if you don't believe that the committee was an engineered one, the Board was not doing something they hadn't vetted. Ultimately it was a committee coming up with a recommendation (not a binding decision). It was the Board's decision (in the capacity of elected officials). MiF was more expensive in large part due to professional development. But I would argue that teacher's math education, no matter, the method, is not anywhere we want it to be. See Liping Ma's Knowing and Teaching Elementary Mathematics (a wonderful and very concrete study of Chinese and American elementary teachers readable by lay people). Evidence of the District trying to get their way continued with their outrageous offer of quick few day "waivers" that historically took months and were sparingly offered. Now this sequencing and re-ordering thing. All part of a long and sustained effort to not do the right thing (and don't get me started on how Everyday Math was chosen and the lawsuit that found the Superintendent and process so irregular that the judge demanded that the District start over--which they didn't. they appealed and the plaintiffs ran out of money).
What parents are seeing is just a skirmish in what has been a few decades of math wars -- none of this makes sense (just feels like a tennis rally that goes on forever) without knowing the deeper history. What parents should know is that many students get to college or community college thinking they are prepared in math, take placement tests and 40% have to be placed in remedial math. Talk to college professors, ask them about readiness. I think it was 60 UW professors en masse who signed a letter a few years back decrying this problem. When students fail the placement tests, they are likely blaming themselves for being math challenged when in fact it was the system that was committed to "Discovery" math (amazing marketing term), use of calculators and a visceral rejection of standard algorithms that got them there. But they don't know that. And they are unlikely to ever complete a STEM career. Have you ever asked yourself why Kumon makes so much money??
Tom Loveless is an excellent source of analysis (Brookings Institution) and I encourage people to read all his work over the years. Here are some recent posts on math: http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2015/05/14-chalkboard-common-core-instruction-loveless and http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2015/07/09-chalkboard-common-core-the-bad-loveless
MathIsMyFocus