Where’s The Math?

Mathematics Instructional Materials Review

June 24, 2008
For Immediate Release

Washington State’s Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) has been responsible for misguided educational leadership for over a decade.  Recently, OSPI’s work in rewriting the state math standards was so defective that the legislature had to intervene and reassign the editing process to an outside consultant.

During this past session the state legislature passed House Bill 2598, directing OSPI to select no more than three curricula each for elementary, middle, and high school.  Once again, the oversight provided by OSPI and the mathematical depth of its team is inadequate for the task.  Additionally, the timeline to collect, review, and rank curricula has been compressed by OSPI, further compromising the process.  During the week of June 23-27, the Instructional Materials Review (IMR) committee will be reviewing K-8 materials.  The rating from this committee will be one component of an undisclosed OSPI process to identify the finalist programs submitted to the State Board of Education for approval.

Washington’s defective process from OSPI is in stark contrast with the well-defined, organized and transparent methodology used by California.  These differences are highlighted in the table below:

Despite the importance of this statewide adoption, Terry Bergeson and OSPI are racing forward with their imbalanced and secretive process.  Furthermore, Dr. Bergeson has allocated inadequate resources, and has been heedless of readily available examples of best practices for mathematics curriculum adoptions.  She has unnecessarily compressed this process into one week, even though she has until October 28th to complete the selection.  Why recklessly rush such a significant decision?

It’s time to take a stand against this politically motivated process..  Dr. Bergeson’s secretive approach must be stopped and replaced by a process that  brings transparency, accountability and mathematical competency to the curriculum review.  The students of Washington State will not get a second chance to repeat their K-12 education.

Washington State Math Curricula Selection Veers Off Track Under Terry Bergeson

            The quality of the K-8 math curricula provided to Washington State students will play a critical role in deciding whether our children will be ready to compete for the jobs of the 21st century.  Unfortunately, the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) under Dr. Terry Bergeson is now taking actions that will result in the selection of weak and inadequate K-8 math curricula for our state. 

Background

            Faced with poor Math WASL scores, the increasing need for math remediation in State colleges, and complaints from parents and businesses, the Washington State legislature passed a series of bills calling for revised K-12 math standards and curricula.  OSPI hired the Texas-based Dana Center to create the new standards.  Costing nearly 1.5 million dollars, the OSPI/Dana draft standards were so poor that the State Legislature took responsibility away from OSPI and gave it to consulting firm Strategic Teaching, under the direction of the State Board of Education (SBE).  OSPI had other problems, including the establishment of Standards Review Teams that were drawn nearly entirely from supporters of “discovery” or “reform” math programs, and high school standards that were so poor that a draft is still unavailable.  In late April, the SBE released the proposed K-8 math standards, which represented a modest improvement over the vague and inadequate attempt by the Dana Center, but still possessed significant problems, including the continued vague and fuzzy language in many standards and saying nothing about the use calculators in the early grades.

OSPI’s Wrong Turn on Math Curricula Selection

            According to Senate Bill 6534, the next step is curricula selection, with OSPI given the responsibility for choosing math curricula that best align with the new state standards by October 28, 2008. OSPI is again attempting to frustrate the legislature’s intent in number of ways:

(1)            Curricula Guidelines Created in Secret by Non-Math Specialists

Instead of an open process, with wide representation of parents, teachers, mathematicians, and math-impacted industry, OSPI has turned to a secretive process that has excluded individuals with real math backgrounds.  Without any outside input, OSPI created a twenty-two-person committee (Mathematics Instructional Materials Review Advisory Group) to create guidelines for making the curriculum decisions.  No public notice was provided for this meeting, nor was any attempt made to ensure a representative group.  Not one member of this group is a current math teacher, with nearly all of them being curriculum specialists or employees of OSPI.   Few of them have real degrees in math or technical subjects such as engineering.  Indeed, why was a separate handpicked advisory group needed, when one group could have been effective in determining the guidelines and evaluating the texts?

(2)            Curriculum Guideline Designed to Maintain the Status Quo

The draft Curriculum Guidelines provide seven criteria for deciding on math curricula. Only ONE criterion deals with the content of the curricula and their alignment with either the new WA math standards or the suggestions of the recently released National Math Panel report.  Equal weight is given to vague issues such as “equity and access” and “student experience” as the actual content of the books.  Alignment to more rigorous math standards should be the key requirement for the new books, not one of seven-odd considerations.  The guidelines call for evaluating the curricula processes of three states (OR, CT, NC), but strangely none of them are known for strong math standards or curricula and none are among the exemplar states recommended as models for the new, revised standards.

(3)            Curricula Review Group Biased in Favor of Current Math Curricula

Nearly four hundred individuals applied to join the group established by OSPI to recommend curricula (the Instructional Materials Review, IMR) committee.  Of the hundred that were selected only TWO identified members of WherestheMath were selected, even though a dozen WTM members applied.  Why was OSPI so fearful of including a significant representation of WTM members, many of whom have strong math backgrounds?

(4)            A Flawed Curriculum Review Process Established

The IMR group will only be meeting for five days in June, an inadequate length of time for reading and evaluating hundreds of books and thousands of pages.  OSPI then has carte blanche for several months afterwards to come up with the final recommendations.  Why was the IMR group given so little time, insuring a cursory examination of the many texts available?  It appears that the IMR review is only window dressing for a process dominated by OSPI staff.

(5)           Thirty Million Dollars Will Be Wasted This Summer on Poorly Conceived “Professional Development”

Dr. Bergeson is planning on spending thirty million dollars of State funds on “professional development” regarding the new math guidelines, even before the standards and associated commentary are finalized and the curricula are selected.  The potential to waste a large amount of public funds is clear.  If the new standards are clearly written, why is “professional development” needed to explain them?  A review of the proposed materials for this summer course indicates an empty experience that is little more than a propaganda session for OSPI.

            Wheresthemath suggests that a new approach is needed. A panel of true math experts, such as mathematics teachers and technical faculty from state universities, must review the submitted instructional materials to ensure they are mathematically accurate, and are aligned with the Washington Mathematics Content Standards and those used by leading nations and states.  Parents, PTA representatives, and math-intensive industry representatives should also have important and sustained inputs. Increased time must be provided for the consideration and development of the new curricula lists, not the five days of the current plan.  And wasting money on ill-planned professional development that is little more than cheerleading events must stop.

            The OSPI-directed curriculum selection process has all the hallmarks of the biased and non-professional approach used by OSPI in the past math standards review.  Without a change in approach, it is highly probable that the resulting curricula will be poor choices for Washington’s children and that intervention by the State Legislature will again be required.  We cannot not allow OSPI to squander another chance for improved mathematics education in our state.

This is the same problem that the medical community has been dealing with where researchers are taking consulting money from pharma companies. The peer reviewed journals are now requiring these researchers to disclose these connections because of the potential for bias / conflict of interest in both the research being performed and the outcomes.

We [WA] have a worse problem in the case of state curriculum selections since district curriculum people will be strongly biased in favor of their prior selections regardless of the fact that the standards have changed. Even if they weren’t, their management will be pushing them to get their district curriculum approved as a cost saving measure.

Read article in Education News

At the start of the 2005-06 school year, Ramona began using textbooks developed for use in Singapore, a Southeast Asian city-state whose pupils consistently rank No. 1 in international math comparisons. Ramona’s math scores soared.

“It’s wonderful,” said Principal Susan Arcaris. “Seven out of 10 of the students in our school are proficient or better in math, and that’s pretty startling when you consider that this is an inner-city, Title 1 school.”

Read article in the Los Angeles Times

This video shows the use of Saxon curriculum at North Beach elementary school. We visit the classroom of teacher Lin-Co Nguyen, and hear about Saxon from students and parents. North Beach elementary has been achieving excellent WASL results with this curriculum. For instance, in 2007, the passage rate for the math WASL was 92% in the fourth grade.

North Beach began using Saxon Math in 2001, in the belief its strong skills-based approach was best for our students, says former North Beach principal Niki Hayes. According to Hayes, the students really learn mathematics and, therefore, most lose the dreaded “math anxiety.” They succeed because of its structure and content, and nothing makes people like something like success. Teachers and parents also find the program extremely user-friendly. For elementary teachers, who are well-known for being “unsure” in mathematics knowledge, they find that teachers learn a lot of math, along with the students. For most parents, it is more familiar with the math they know (especially for English language learners and those from poverty).

by Michelle Malkin

Across the country, from New York City to Seattle, parents are wising up to math fads like “Everyday Math.” Sounds harmless enough, right? It’s cleverly marketed as a “University of Chicago” program. Impressive! Right? But then you start to sense something’s not adding up when your kid starts second grade and comes home with the same kindergarten-level addition and subtraction problems — for the second year in a row.

Read more…

Texas Challenges City on Math Curriculum

The state of Texas has dropped a math curriculum that is mandated for use in New York City schools, saying it was leaving public school graduates unprepared for college.

The curriculum, called Everyday Mathematics, became the standard for elementary students in New York City when Mayor Bloomberg took control of the public schools in 2003.

Read more in The New York Sun

…. The imprimatur of the National Science Foundation and the U.S. Department of Education certification of some of the worst math textbooks in the industrialized world makes it particularly difficult to dissuade school districts from using them. ….

Corporate foundations also contribute. In 2001, for example, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation teamed up to award the San Diego Unified School District $22.5 million ….

The NSF and corporate foundations maintain a gravy train of education grants and awards that stifle competent mathematics education. ….

Read more in The Ridgewood Blog

by William Hook

The claims of “outstanding academic success and rigorous international math standards” for the Bellevue school district are a major barrier to the adoption of true world class international math standards and textbooks for the critical elementary school years in the state of Washington, according to the math activist group “Wheresthemath”. This is because many state and local political figures and school boards believe these claims, and are inclined to follow the example of Bellevue in establishing “world class” math standards and purchasing textbooks. ‘Wheresthemath’ has asked me to examine these claims. The primary purpose of this paper is to document my findings as they relate to a possible state adoption of a new set of math standards.

I conclude that the Bellevue model will not provide the state of Washington with a world class K-12 math program, and most of the claims about curriculum and textbooks found in their public documents are inaccurate or greatly exaggerated.

Read more

By Jessica Blanchard, P-I Reporter

… On Wednesday, after more than a yearlong review of textbook options, Chief Academic Officer Carla Santorno will recommend that the School Board adopt “Everyday Math” textbooks and use elements from “Singapore Math” to supplement lessons. …

… Adding elements of the more traditional “Singapore Math” will allow teachers to build in even more activities to improve students’ computation skills, Santorno said. The math materials are named for Singapore students, who have used them and ranked first in international math tests for more than a decade. …

…At a meeting Wednesday, Seattle Public Schools officials will recommend to the School Board which elementary math materials the district should adopt. The board will listen to public testimony, but a final decision won’t be made until later this month. The meeting starts at 6 p.m. in the auditorium of the district’s headquarters, at 2445 Third Ave. S.

Read More in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer

Academic chief tries to make grade

by Alex Fryer
… Her most conspicuous effort so far — establishing a uniform math curriculum at the elementary-school level — has been difficult to develop and met resistance from parents and teachers. Her proposal, which the School Board is scheduled to consider tonight, is something of a compromise between two distinctly different approaches. …

Read more in the Seattle Times

See also
Seattle Elementary Mathematics Adoption