As I mentioned in another post, the minutes from the Board’s committee meetings are being written in a manner that makes it difficult to ferret out information. But what IS useful is when staff comes with a presentation so the entire thing gets uploaded and attached as documentation.
I was looking at the documentation for last week’s Student Services, Curriculum & Instruction meeting, agenda here.
Under “Special Attention Items,” we see K-5 Mathematics. The adopted curriculum is Math in Focus. I’ll cut to the chase but flesh out details below - Math in Focus is NOT being used in any real way in elementaries.
Here are the basics on Math in Focus in SPS (except for the cost but we’ll get to that).
• Math in Focus was adopted in 2014 for a 7-year period.
• The adoption expires in 2020-21 school year.
• In 2014, instructional materials were used nearly exclusively in print version and digital components were minimal at best. All that was available with Math in Focus was a Flash-based e-text and resources in PDF form.
• In 2020-21, students learned remotely for most of the school year. Every student was issued a device.
• Instructional materials now have robust digital components that are interactive and comprehensive and the print materials are a small part of a larger suite of digital resources.
• HMHCO, the publisher, will no longer be supporting the printed 2015 edition of Math in Focus after June 2021.
• Math in Focus 2015 print materials will not be available to purchase after June 2021.
• HMHCO is no longer supporting the digital 2015 edition as of 12/31/20.
• SPS must pay for access to online components yearly moving forward, in addition to workbooks.
Considerations to continue using Math in Focus:
PROS
- Students and teachers will have access to digital teachers' and student editions
• The physical and online components for 2018 are identical to 2015
• SPS Day-to-Day Plans can still be utilized
CONS
• ~$170K cost increase over current spending (for online components and newer workbooks)
• Not aligned to standards
• There is no digital platform in the case of remote, hybrid, or asynchronous learning
• There is no online access for Spanish K
Well, none of this looks good, does it? But wait, there’s more. How does Math in Focus do academically?
EdReports independently reviews instructional materials for alignment to standards.
Math in Focus receives extremely low scores for its lack of standards alignment.
Yes, those statements do raise the question - how did this thing get bought? 2015 was not that long ago.
Moving on, test results:
SBA Proficiency Across All Students
• Results are static year-to-year
• Student proficiency decreases over grades 3, 4, and 5
SBA Proficiency for African-American students
• Results decreasing in grades 3 & 4, increasing in 5
• Student proficiency decreases over grades 3, 4, and 5
So, in short, not good.
Let’s move onto waivers. As you may recall, if schools do not want to use adopted curriculum, they have to submit a waiver every year. Let’s look at those numbers for 2020-2021.
• Total # Elementary/K-8 Schools: 73
• Schools with approved waivers: 22 schools or 30%
• At least 5 additional waivers for 2021-22 approved or in progress
• Materials in use: enVision: 11 schools
EngageNY: 1 school
San Francisco Unified: 2 schools
Bridges in Mathematics: 4 schools
Ready Math: 4 schools
So that’s quite a variation of curriculum for all those schools and that in itself would be interesting to understand. Does the district know how that all came about? Not sure.
And I learned something new from this report - not only do schools want waivers, if granted, the district has to pay the costs. I never knew that.
Cost of Waivered Materials
• enVision: 11 schools @$15,000/year
• EngageNY: 1 school @$2,500/year
• San Francisco Unified: 2 schools @$2,000/year • Bridges in Mathematics: 4 schools @$5000/year • Ready Math: 4 schools @$12,000/year
Result - Schools are spending over $250,000 per year on waivered materials
But it gets even better. The district had an “informal survey” in December 2020 of teachers and found this:
• 69% of respondents are NOT using Math in Focus, either as is or w/ SPS Day-to- Day Plans
• 44% are not using Math in Focus and do not have a waiver
Wait, what? There are even MORE schools not using Math in Focus and, for whatever reason, do not have waivers? That’s quite the free-for-all.
Again, from the survey:
“What do you use for your primary instructional material (you can choose more than one)?”
43% of those who “do something else” use “other” instructional materials
What about the district’s math interventionists who are district staff who go out to schools to help support the teachers?
Math interventionists were asked about the current math curriculum environment in
their buildings. Here are some responses.
• I cannot keep straight what each grade level or even what each teacher is using.
• Variations in content, vocabulary, and strategies makes supporting teachers and
students nearly impossible.
• When curriculum is incoherent across grade levels students are not provided a
coherent learning progression and it undermines their confidence.
• Recordkeeping, data collection, assessment materials are a mess. We are not using
consistent data in PLC.
• It doesn't matter what curriculum is used. Coherence is more important.
• I don’t even know what people are teaching.
That next-to-the last statement confuses me - does anyone know what that person might mean?
About those waivered materials:
All waivered materials in use receive extremely high ratings for standards.
These include ReadyMath, Zearn (Engage NY), Envision, and Bridges in Math. However, do keep in mind that apparently many other schools are using unapproved materials so hard to gauge how they might be doing except, of course, test scores. I sure wish there had been a slide about test scores from school to school. (I would do that but looking up 73 schools and their math scores is not my dream job. You can go to OSPI and compare your child’s school to others.)
The last slide says this:
Math in Focus 2018 for 7 years
• $5.43 million
• Paying $517k for 7 years for consumables*
• Schools spending $259k per year for waivered materials
*Assuming costs stay the same and the publisher continues supporting it (there is a newer 2020 edition)
VS
EnVision 2020 K-5 for 7 years
• $3.03 million*
• Includes cost of consumables for 7 years
*Based on a quote from publisher in June 2020
Bottom line:
We may spend $2.4 million more on a material that has limited use, which isn't aligned, and which has no digital platform.
Now if I was a suspicious person, I might say to myself, “Wow, staff makes such a compelling case for switching to EnVision but had not one good thing to say about the approved curriculum, Math in Focus.”
Thoughts?
Comments
Second: there is zero data in Ed Reports about how well a curricula works.
Third: Ed Reports members are chosen by someone. Who are these reviewers? What are their credentials? Can they get booted off if they say 'maybe this topic could be in a different year'? We have no way of knowing. It would be easier to find out what the Politburo planned to do during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Now another comment. Highline adopted San Francisco's curriculum a couple of years ago. My sense from talking with some parents is it has not been used during the pandemic because the curricula is just a bunch of PDFs. Nearly all of the PDFs are avaiable online. The questions are trivial. There's zero enrichment, reteach or Mental Math. ALL of these topics are available as separate books from at least some flavors of Math in Focus. If a district is going to say ALL students must be in the same classroom, and we'll differentiate, then the least the district could do is get those materials for the differentiation.
continued ...
Also, a comment on the adoption. In December 2018, the district posted on the teacher/ staff portion of the web site they were going to have a math adoption, and would anyone like to apply. There was zero notice on the public portion, email to parents, notices to PTAs, etc. In Feb, they sent out an email saying 'we're going to have some open houses, stop by and see our choices for new math materials for K8". That's when we learned this was going on.
I looked to see if the SF materials were evaluated by Ed Reports. No, they were not. I checked again just now. Nope, still not reviewed.
The San Francisco curricula is in part a partnership with Jo Boaler. She does not believe in acceleration. What San Francisco does is say all kids can't take Alg 1 until 9th. THat is what Highline is doing too in future years. (They forced all the accelerated kids to repeat a grade of materials, so students in fifth who had done 6th math had to do 6th math the next year). A difference though: SFUSD has a summer program, where students can take Geometry after 9th. They don't provide bus, from what I can tell. The schools that get the summer Geometry appear to be schools with the most nearby students. So the poorer kids have to get their own way to the classes, and they may be the ones who most need to work in order to help with family income. It is incredibly messed up, and really tragic for these kids who are capable.
It is hard to tell a child "you need to do extra math." It will be worse to tell the young adult a few years later, I'm sorry, you are not ready for STEM, or nursing, or business, because you don't have the math skills and foundations to learn the material. Or to have to say sorry, you need to go to a bunch of remedial classes, you can't go to a four year college. Or for parents to look at their finances and realize how costly another year of college is going to be and how that is going to impact family finances and retirement. Ed Reports doesn't care about those impacts, but you should.
Brain Drain
Very difficult to link student achievement to math curriculum because the district provided many many waivers. The waiver process began immediately after math adoption.
As this board and district seek to disrupt advanced learning opportunities, I hope more students enroll in Running Start.
https://nces.ed.gov/blogs/nces/post/new-international-data-show-large-and-widening-gaps-between-high-and-low-performing-u-s-4th-and-8th-graders-in-mathematics-and-science
The USA, despite all the efforts toward equity, is performing worse than other countries that use better instructional methods. Take Quebec for example. They use traditional, teach to mastery, explicit instruction. Their gap is one of the lowest in the world.
There is a solution to closing the achievement gap. Our policy makers are not seeing it.
Common Sense Mom
In the Spring of 2020, I essentially homeschooled our younger child in math for three months for two hours a day, until she was able to complete the full quizzes and tests from the enVision book as there were so many holes in her knowledge. This year she’s been getting perfect scores on her math tests. But she also meets for an hour a week with a tutor, not to get help with homework, but so that the tutor can ensure that everything from the book is being covered and to discuss more challenging problems.
As the district has adopted enVision for Middle School math, and as I recall had previously wanted to adopt it for elementary math before a school board override, I think that’s the best path. I believe there is no point in the parents or the board doing anything other than what the staff wants. My perception of enVision is that it is an easier curriculum and better for SPS and that the online component works well.
As SPS has eliminated walk-to-math, cut back on math homework, cut chapters from the book, moved to group tests, and eliminated the option for students to test up in middle school, it should be expected that overall state test scores have been impacted. The SPS teachers have been excellent, and the curriculum fine, but it’s had to overcome policy.