Still Asleep at the Wheel
Anyone who has children attending D11 schools understands that math is not high on the list of priorities for the current administration or school board. Despite data showing the D11 performs miserably at teaching math as a district, administrators and board members have absolutely no interest in making any effort to reverse this course, which is damaging the ability of thousands of students to perform simple math calculations.
Carla Albers has been championing solid math curriculum for the district for several years. Her attempts to encourage the district to do right by its students have consistently fallen on deaf ears. I previously posted a letter that Carla sent to the board with an attachment from math experts from around the country. As is typical of the current crop of board members, nobody even acknowledged the letter from Carla, with the exception of Tom Strand, who was too afraid to make an issue out of the poor math performance of the district.
In an email, I asked Carla about the response she received after she made further attempts to engage the lethargic school board on the topic of math. Here is her reply:
Funny you should ask.
As you know, I wrote to the BOE and several top D-11 administrators on November 30, 2007, providing them with information from two highly qualified math experts suggesting that the program in use in the majority of D-11 elementary schools does not give students the foundational knowledge necessary to allow them to succeed at upper level math, absent outside intervention by a tutor or parent. You have posted the information I received from Dr. Jim Milgram at Stanford, and Dr. Steve Wilson at Johns Hopkins University, in a prior blog entry. I received exactly one response to this information – from Tom Strand, who thanked me for the same and indicated he would be following up on math issues.
On January 7, 2008, I re-sent this information to the board and administration, along with a note expressing disappointment that no one other than Mr. Strand seemed at all interested in the information I had provided. This time, I received one more response – from Jan Tanner. In my original email, I suggested that the BOE ask D-11 administrators to provide data showing that kids who are not expected to learn standard algorithms and who are not expected to have fluency with basic math facts without the use of a calculator, are successful in higher level math. This suggestion was in the context of the Everyday Math program which does not, in fact, teach or expect those skills. Ms. Tanner’s response was, to quote, “Frankly, I don’t intend to do that since I don’t believe that is what our math curriculum expects of students.”
After I wrote back to suggest that she read the Everyday Math teacher’s guide, which does in fact set forth those very things, she responded, and I quote, “Your original mail suggested that none of our students are taught standard arithmetic algorithms, and that none are required to have fluency and automaticity of basic facts without the aid of a calculator, and that they are not successful at higher level math. This is what I said I do not believe is happening. I do not make such sweeping statements about any curriculum used or any learning happening in Dist. 11. If you share my response with others, I trust you will not put words in my mouth and say that I have a lack of interest in this subject.”
A couple of problems with this response. First, I never suggested that no D-11 students are taught standard algorithms or required to learn basic math facts without the aid of the calculator. My entire letter, as well as the documentation from Dr. Milgram and Dr. Wilson, dealt with the factual reality of a specific program, Everyday Math. Second, Ms. Tanner disagrees with the suggestion that students in D-11 are not successful at higher level math. Apparently she doesn’t know, or perhaps doesn’t consider important, that over two thirds of D-11 eleventh graders do not score well enough to meet the college readiness benchmark for algebra established by ACT. (Per ACT, a score of 22 on the math section suggests a student is ready for college algebra) This is stunning when you consider that the normal track for D-11 students is to take algebra in 9th grade – two years before they take the ACT. Since when is 33% of our students scoring 22 or above defined as success?
This little episode is indicative of the problems that pervade D-11, and how things work now that all the board members get along and are friendly. First, most of the board members didn’t even take the time to respond to a constituent. Not only did I provide specific information as to my concerns with a widely used math program, I provided information from two PhD level mathematicians with experience in reviewing elementary math programs, and specifically Everyday Math, and who have concluded that the program mathematically cripples students. One would think that in the normal course of things, in a setting where accountability and results are important, that the information provided, at least on its face, would cause serious questions to be asked. Sadly, there is little apparent intellectual curiosity by those in charge of the district to examine why math scores drop so precipitously the longer kids stay in the district, or to explore the reasons why mathematicians across the country have been sounding the alarm about math programs such as Everyday Math. As noted by Dr.’s Milgram and Wilson, the only kids with a chance to succeed are those kids whose parents have the knowledge base to understand something is terribly wrong, and with the means to do something about it. I would add to this and note that there are teachers in the district – some of whom I know – who know how bad this program is, and who close their doors and teach kids real math that gives them real competency. Right now, unless you have a precocious math student – one who will learn no matter what the program, or one who has parents and/or teachers to help them, kids taught under Everyday Math enjoy the illusion of math competency – which illusion will end abruptly when they are required to do real math.
Below is the complete exchange of emails between Carla and Jan Tanner, one of the most most ardent opponents of improvement in D11.
From: "Carla A." carla.albers@comcast.net
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2008 10:47:49 -0700
To: "'Carla A.'", "'BISHOP, TERRY N.'" , , , , , , , Cc: , , 'Shari Griffin' shari.griffin@gazette.com
Subject: RE: D-11 Math Education
Dear BOE members, Dr. Bishop, et. al.:
I am resending the below email and information as I had only one response to my original email – from Director Strand. I would have hoped to see a little more interest by board members and administrators to the information provided. Both Dr. Milgram and Dr. Wilson have impeccable math credentials, and both teach mathematics at elite institutions. Furthermore, both have been actively involved at the national level in reviewing and studying elementary math education, its failures, and the resulting lack of students entering the science and mathematics fields. Given that fully 2/3 of D-11 11th graders fail to meet the mathematics college readiness score on ACT, I am increasingly frustrated by the apparent lack of concern, interest and desire to figure out what we need to be doing better with respect to our mathematics education. D-11 is getting ready to open a math and science magnet school at East. It is my concern that unless D-11 spends the time to figure out why kids can’t do upper level math with proficiency, it is doomed to open a school which will fail yet again at its supposed mission of educating the students of District 11. I can only hope you will prove me wrong.
Sincerely,
Carla Albers
-----Original Message-----
From: Jan Tanner [mailto:tannerjj@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 12:30 PM
To: Carla A.Cc: Tami Hasling; Terry Bishop
Subject: Re: D-11 Math Education
Ms Albers,
I apologize for not acknowledging you correspondence. I see now that you expected a response to your original mail. I read no question to us in your mail, so I don’t know what you are asking of us, rather than suggesting that we ask administration “to provide data showing that students who are not taught the standard arithmetic algorithms, and who are not required to have fluency and automaticity of basic facts without the aid of a calculator, are successful at higher level math.” Frankly, I don’t intend to do that since I don’t believe that is what our math curriculum expects of students. I believe that our future Math and Science Magnet School will succeed in creating interest in math and science that is not evident in our students today. I also believe that our elementary schools will begin to focus on preparing students for this school, and whether students attend the magnet school or not, they will benefit from this preparation no matter what school they attend.
Jan Tanner
School District 11Board of Education
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE - This e-mail, and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages attached to it, may contain information regarding students or staff of District 11 that is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you must not read and that any disclosure, copying, printing, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify the sender by telephone or return e-mail and delete the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. Thank you.
From: "Carla A." carla.albers@comcast.net
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 12:59:33 -0700
To: 'Jan Tanner' tannerjj@gmail.com
Cc: 'Tami Hasling', 'Terry Bishop' , "'Carla A.'" Subject:
RE: D-11 Math Education
Ms. Tanner:
Thank you for your response. In the future, perhaps you might consider responding as Tom Strand did, i.e., to thank me for the information which I provided to the board. It’s an easy way to let constituents know you are actually reading their emails. It is unfortunate that you seem unwilling to listen to the viewpoints of two imminently qualified mathematicians as to the harm Everyday Math is doing not only to the students of D-11, but to students nationwide. There is a lack of interest in math and science precisely because students are not being taught the foundations necessary to succeed later, which becomes readily apparent when they reach middle and high school and simply cannot do the math. In light of district scores on CSAPs and ACTs, I had hoped for a little intellectual curiosity as to why that is. I will share your response with others who are concerned, as I am, about the seeming lack of interest by those in leadership positions to address the looming crisis described by Dr. Milgram in the letter provided for your information.
Sincerely,
Carla Albers
p.s. To the extent you do not “believe” that Everyday Math does not expect fluency in the basic operations without the aid of a calculator, I suggest you read the teacher’s manual. There, it is noted that time in class should not be wasted on pencil and paper calculations because answers can be found “quickly and easily” with a calculator. The facts are there if you choose to look for them.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jan Tanner [mailto:tannerjj@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 1:22 PM
To: Carla A.
Cc: Tami Hasling; Terry Bishop
Subject: Re: D-11 Math Education
Ms Albers,
Please do not take the liberty of reading anything more into my response than what I wrote. I did not indicate I am unwilling to consider viewpoints of others. Do not presume that I did not read the opinions you shared with us, nor presume that I am not concerned about our students’ success in math. In your post script you make an incorrect assumption. I did not say that I don’t believe “Everyday Math does not expect fluency in the basic operations without the need of a calculator.” Your original mail suggested that none of our students are taught standard arithmetic algorithms, and that none are required to have fluency and automaticity of basic facts without the aid of a calculator, and that they are not successful at higher level math. This is what I said I do not believe is happening. I do not make such sweeping statements about any curriculum used or any learning happening in Dist. 11.If you share my response with others, I trust you will not put words in my mouth and say that I have a lack of interest in this subject.
Jan Tanner
-----Original Message-----
From: Carla A. [mailto:carla.albers@comcast.net]
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 1:41 PM
To: 'Jan Tanner'Cc: 'Tami Hasling'; 'Terry Bishop'; 'Carla A.'
Subject: RE: D-11 Math Education
Ms. Tanner:
In your effort to backtrack, you forgot to read my original email. It is quite clear that it was directed towards a specific program, Everyday Math. The correspondence from Dr. Milgram and Dr. Wilson referenced a specific program, Everyday Math. You will find no language in my email which remotely resembles what you have just stated that it did.
The fact is that Everyday Math does not teach the standard algorithms as their focus algorithms. It never introduces the standard algorithm for long division. The teachers’ manuals do in fact suggest that students should not spend a lot of time with pencil and paper calculations because they can use a calculator to find the answer. Calculators are introduced in kindergarten. The majority of D-11 elementary schools use Everyday Math. Over 65% of this district’s 11th graders don’t meet the college readiness benchmark for math on ACT. (Do you really want to argue that our kids are successful at higher level math?) Those are the facts, whether you like them or not. Pretending they aren’t what they are will certainly do nothing to advance the education of kids in this district.
I would not presume to put words in your mouth. I will share your response verbatim. It speaks for itself.
Sincerely,
Carla Albers
Wow. There are several observations that can be made about Tanner’s replies. First of all, she apparently has no idea how poorly D11 students are being taught in math. This lack of interest in her own district’s performance is not surprising in someone whose agenda has nothing to do with educating kids.
Tanner claims now that the goal of the district’s elementary schools will be to prepare kids to have an interest in the new math and science magnet school. Stop being so ambitious, Ms. Tanner. Why bother preparing kids for life as an engineer or scientist when we can make the goal a bit less daunting by preparing kids for the magnet school instead?
The big problem with the math magnet school is that D11 does not have anyone in administration who has any concept on how to teach math. What value will the magnet school bring to the district when we can be certain that the same fuzzy math concepts will be taught – the same math that is failing to interest or instruct our kids today? If a curriculum is not working today, why would it work just because you now call a school a magnet school? If the district is not going to use fuzzy math at the magnet so that students will actually learn math, then why on earth would the administration continue to push the failed math programs on the rest of the district?
It is apparent by Tanner’s replies that she and her board colleagues have no interest in improving D11’s math education. She doesn’t even know the data in her own district, yet she pretends that a math magnet will be the cure-all for the entire district. This from a woman who claimed that “attention to detail” was actually one of her strengths.
Sidebar: Notice that Tanner, an elected public official, has a postscript attached to her emails that warns people NOT to distribute her emails. Talk about openness in government...Tanner's emails are public record, and she knows it. Elected officials who do not have the interest of their constituents at heart often try to keep their views hidden from public view.
Carla Albers has been championing solid math curriculum for the district for several years. Her attempts to encourage the district to do right by its students have consistently fallen on deaf ears. I previously posted a letter that Carla sent to the board with an attachment from math experts from around the country. As is typical of the current crop of board members, nobody even acknowledged the letter from Carla, with the exception of Tom Strand, who was too afraid to make an issue out of the poor math performance of the district.
In an email, I asked Carla about the response she received after she made further attempts to engage the lethargic school board on the topic of math. Here is her reply:
Funny you should ask.
As you know, I wrote to the BOE and several top D-11 administrators on November 30, 2007, providing them with information from two highly qualified math experts suggesting that the program in use in the majority of D-11 elementary schools does not give students the foundational knowledge necessary to allow them to succeed at upper level math, absent outside intervention by a tutor or parent. You have posted the information I received from Dr. Jim Milgram at Stanford, and Dr. Steve Wilson at Johns Hopkins University, in a prior blog entry. I received exactly one response to this information – from Tom Strand, who thanked me for the same and indicated he would be following up on math issues.
On January 7, 2008, I re-sent this information to the board and administration, along with a note expressing disappointment that no one other than Mr. Strand seemed at all interested in the information I had provided. This time, I received one more response – from Jan Tanner. In my original email, I suggested that the BOE ask D-11 administrators to provide data showing that kids who are not expected to learn standard algorithms and who are not expected to have fluency with basic math facts without the use of a calculator, are successful in higher level math. This suggestion was in the context of the Everyday Math program which does not, in fact, teach or expect those skills. Ms. Tanner’s response was, to quote, “Frankly, I don’t intend to do that since I don’t believe that is what our math curriculum expects of students.”
After I wrote back to suggest that she read the Everyday Math teacher’s guide, which does in fact set forth those very things, she responded, and I quote, “Your original mail suggested that none of our students are taught standard arithmetic algorithms, and that none are required to have fluency and automaticity of basic facts without the aid of a calculator, and that they are not successful at higher level math. This is what I said I do not believe is happening. I do not make such sweeping statements about any curriculum used or any learning happening in Dist. 11. If you share my response with others, I trust you will not put words in my mouth and say that I have a lack of interest in this subject.”
A couple of problems with this response. First, I never suggested that no D-11 students are taught standard algorithms or required to learn basic math facts without the aid of the calculator. My entire letter, as well as the documentation from Dr. Milgram and Dr. Wilson, dealt with the factual reality of a specific program, Everyday Math. Second, Ms. Tanner disagrees with the suggestion that students in D-11 are not successful at higher level math. Apparently she doesn’t know, or perhaps doesn’t consider important, that over two thirds of D-11 eleventh graders do not score well enough to meet the college readiness benchmark for algebra established by ACT. (Per ACT, a score of 22 on the math section suggests a student is ready for college algebra) This is stunning when you consider that the normal track for D-11 students is to take algebra in 9th grade – two years before they take the ACT. Since when is 33% of our students scoring 22 or above defined as success?
This little episode is indicative of the problems that pervade D-11, and how things work now that all the board members get along and are friendly. First, most of the board members didn’t even take the time to respond to a constituent. Not only did I provide specific information as to my concerns with a widely used math program, I provided information from two PhD level mathematicians with experience in reviewing elementary math programs, and specifically Everyday Math, and who have concluded that the program mathematically cripples students. One would think that in the normal course of things, in a setting where accountability and results are important, that the information provided, at least on its face, would cause serious questions to be asked. Sadly, there is little apparent intellectual curiosity by those in charge of the district to examine why math scores drop so precipitously the longer kids stay in the district, or to explore the reasons why mathematicians across the country have been sounding the alarm about math programs such as Everyday Math. As noted by Dr.’s Milgram and Wilson, the only kids with a chance to succeed are those kids whose parents have the knowledge base to understand something is terribly wrong, and with the means to do something about it. I would add to this and note that there are teachers in the district – some of whom I know – who know how bad this program is, and who close their doors and teach kids real math that gives them real competency. Right now, unless you have a precocious math student – one who will learn no matter what the program, or one who has parents and/or teachers to help them, kids taught under Everyday Math enjoy the illusion of math competency – which illusion will end abruptly when they are required to do real math.
Below is the complete exchange of emails between Carla and Jan Tanner, one of the most most ardent opponents of improvement in D11.
From: "Carla A." carla.albers@comcast.net
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2008 10:47:49 -0700
To: "'Carla A.'"
Subject: RE: D-11 Math Education
Dear BOE members, Dr. Bishop, et. al.:
I am resending the below email and information as I had only one response to my original email – from Director Strand. I would have hoped to see a little more interest by board members and administrators to the information provided. Both Dr. Milgram and Dr. Wilson have impeccable math credentials, and both teach mathematics at elite institutions. Furthermore, both have been actively involved at the national level in reviewing and studying elementary math education, its failures, and the resulting lack of students entering the science and mathematics fields. Given that fully 2/3 of D-11 11th graders fail to meet the mathematics college readiness score on ACT, I am increasingly frustrated by the apparent lack of concern, interest and desire to figure out what we need to be doing better with respect to our mathematics education. D-11 is getting ready to open a math and science magnet school at East. It is my concern that unless D-11 spends the time to figure out why kids can’t do upper level math with proficiency, it is doomed to open a school which will fail yet again at its supposed mission of educating the students of District 11. I can only hope you will prove me wrong.
Sincerely,
Carla Albers
-----Original Message-----
From: Jan Tanner [mailto:tannerjj@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 12:30 PM
To: Carla A.Cc: Tami Hasling; Terry Bishop
Subject: Re: D-11 Math Education
Ms Albers,
I apologize for not acknowledging you correspondence. I see now that you expected a response to your original mail. I read no question to us in your mail, so I don’t know what you are asking of us, rather than suggesting that we ask administration “to provide data showing that students who are not taught the standard arithmetic algorithms, and who are not required to have fluency and automaticity of basic facts without the aid of a calculator, are successful at higher level math.” Frankly, I don’t intend to do that since I don’t believe that is what our math curriculum expects of students. I believe that our future Math and Science Magnet School will succeed in creating interest in math and science that is not evident in our students today. I also believe that our elementary schools will begin to focus on preparing students for this school, and whether students attend the magnet school or not, they will benefit from this preparation no matter what school they attend.
Jan Tanner
School District 11Board of Education
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE - This e-mail, and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages attached to it, may contain information regarding students or staff of District 11 that is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you must not read and that any disclosure, copying, printing, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify the sender by telephone or return e-mail and delete the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. Thank you.
From: "Carla A." carla.albers@comcast.net
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 12:59:33 -0700
To: 'Jan Tanner' tannerjj@gmail.com
Cc: 'Tami Hasling'
RE: D-11 Math Education
Ms. Tanner:
Thank you for your response. In the future, perhaps you might consider responding as Tom Strand did, i.e., to thank me for the information which I provided to the board. It’s an easy way to let constituents know you are actually reading their emails. It is unfortunate that you seem unwilling to listen to the viewpoints of two imminently qualified mathematicians as to the harm Everyday Math is doing not only to the students of D-11, but to students nationwide. There is a lack of interest in math and science precisely because students are not being taught the foundations necessary to succeed later, which becomes readily apparent when they reach middle and high school and simply cannot do the math. In light of district scores on CSAPs and ACTs, I had hoped for a little intellectual curiosity as to why that is. I will share your response with others who are concerned, as I am, about the seeming lack of interest by those in leadership positions to address the looming crisis described by Dr. Milgram in the letter provided for your information.
Sincerely,
Carla Albers
p.s. To the extent you do not “believe” that Everyday Math does not expect fluency in the basic operations without the aid of a calculator, I suggest you read the teacher’s manual. There, it is noted that time in class should not be wasted on pencil and paper calculations because answers can be found “quickly and easily” with a calculator. The facts are there if you choose to look for them.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jan Tanner [mailto:tannerjj@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 1:22 PM
To: Carla A.
Cc: Tami Hasling; Terry Bishop
Subject: Re: D-11 Math Education
Ms Albers,
Please do not take the liberty of reading anything more into my response than what I wrote. I did not indicate I am unwilling to consider viewpoints of others. Do not presume that I did not read the opinions you shared with us, nor presume that I am not concerned about our students’ success in math. In your post script you make an incorrect assumption. I did not say that I don’t believe “Everyday Math does not expect fluency in the basic operations without the need of a calculator.” Your original mail suggested that none of our students are taught standard arithmetic algorithms, and that none are required to have fluency and automaticity of basic facts without the aid of a calculator, and that they are not successful at higher level math. This is what I said I do not believe is happening. I do not make such sweeping statements about any curriculum used or any learning happening in Dist. 11.If you share my response with others, I trust you will not put words in my mouth and say that I have a lack of interest in this subject.
Jan Tanner
-----Original Message-----
From: Carla A. [mailto:carla.albers@comcast.net]
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 1:41 PM
To: 'Jan Tanner'Cc: 'Tami Hasling'; 'Terry Bishop'; 'Carla A.'
Subject: RE: D-11 Math Education
Ms. Tanner:
In your effort to backtrack, you forgot to read my original email. It is quite clear that it was directed towards a specific program, Everyday Math. The correspondence from Dr. Milgram and Dr. Wilson referenced a specific program, Everyday Math. You will find no language in my email which remotely resembles what you have just stated that it did.
The fact is that Everyday Math does not teach the standard algorithms as their focus algorithms. It never introduces the standard algorithm for long division. The teachers’ manuals do in fact suggest that students should not spend a lot of time with pencil and paper calculations because they can use a calculator to find the answer. Calculators are introduced in kindergarten. The majority of D-11 elementary schools use Everyday Math. Over 65% of this district’s 11th graders don’t meet the college readiness benchmark for math on ACT. (Do you really want to argue that our kids are successful at higher level math?) Those are the facts, whether you like them or not. Pretending they aren’t what they are will certainly do nothing to advance the education of kids in this district.
I would not presume to put words in your mouth. I will share your response verbatim. It speaks for itself.
Sincerely,
Carla Albers
Wow. There are several observations that can be made about Tanner’s replies. First of all, she apparently has no idea how poorly D11 students are being taught in math. This lack of interest in her own district’s performance is not surprising in someone whose agenda has nothing to do with educating kids.
Tanner claims now that the goal of the district’s elementary schools will be to prepare kids to have an interest in the new math and science magnet school. Stop being so ambitious, Ms. Tanner. Why bother preparing kids for life as an engineer or scientist when we can make the goal a bit less daunting by preparing kids for the magnet school instead?
The big problem with the math magnet school is that D11 does not have anyone in administration who has any concept on how to teach math. What value will the magnet school bring to the district when we can be certain that the same fuzzy math concepts will be taught – the same math that is failing to interest or instruct our kids today? If a curriculum is not working today, why would it work just because you now call a school a magnet school? If the district is not going to use fuzzy math at the magnet so that students will actually learn math, then why on earth would the administration continue to push the failed math programs on the rest of the district?
It is apparent by Tanner’s replies that she and her board colleagues have no interest in improving D11’s math education. She doesn’t even know the data in her own district, yet she pretends that a math magnet will be the cure-all for the entire district. This from a woman who claimed that “attention to detail” was actually one of her strengths.
Sidebar: Notice that Tanner, an elected public official, has a postscript attached to her emails that warns people NOT to distribute her emails. Talk about openness in government...Tanner's emails are public record, and she knows it. Elected officials who do not have the interest of their constituents at heart often try to keep their views hidden from public view.
posted by Craig Cox | 9:57 PM
7 Comments:
Jan is too busy showing up at meetings with Bush Administration officials so she can mouth the Democrat line about NCLB being so bad for schools. Her and the other 7 dwarfs are a site to behold and a futher indication that if you have kids in D11 schools, you need to get the hell out, ASAP.
It is hard to believe the math scores are as bad as this post says. How can someone check these scores? Is it really this bad? If it's this bad, what does D-11 do when this many are scoring so bad?
Anony #2 - I have posted D11 statistics elsewhere on this blog. Do a search on "Math" and you will find some of those entries. You can also go to the D11 website at http://www.cssd11.k12.co.us/. At this site, go down the left side to "Student Achievement," then select "School Profiles." Once you are there, you can look at the CSAP scores box and pick any school to view test scores. D11 is not extremely proud of its perfromance, so the last data that they bothered to record is from the 03-04 school year.
If you want current data, go to the CDE link at http://www.cde.state.co.us/cdeassess/documents/csap/2007/2007_Data/DS_CSAP07/CSAP07_MA_DS.pdf and you can find the D11 data as you scroll down one of the pages.
As far as what D11 does when it continuously performs this poorly, it does nothing but make excuses and blame the color of the students' skin for their performance. D11 has been in the tank in math for years, and none of the superintendents have doen anything to change course. In fact, they still defend the horrible math curriculum. As for Jan Tanner, she and her other disinterested colleagues simply don't care. They are on the board to feel important, not to make a difference.
Craig: Since I provided the above information to the BOE and administrators, the National Math Panel, on March 13, 2008, voted unanimously to approve its report, "Foundations for Success: The Final Report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel."
Interested readers can find the report at http://www.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/mathpanel/index.html
This report notes that mathematics education in the United States is broken. It stresses the importance of having foundational information, i.e., math facts and standard algorithms, committed to long term memory. Contrary to those who have pushed the reform math mantra that "memorization is bad, it stifles creativity, etc.," this report confirms how important it is for students to have this foundational information memorized.
More importantly, the report specifically addresses the "spiraling" concept found in programs such as Everyday Math. Talk to any true believer, and you will be told that EM is great because it spirals, i.e., you come back to a topic again, and again, and again. This wouldn't be bad if the goal were mastery, but it isn't. Per EM, the goal is familiarity, which is significantly different from mastery. A quote from the report makes this point clear: "A focused, coherent progression of mathematics learning, with an emphasis on proficiency with key topics, should become the norm in elementary and middle school mathematics curricula. Any approach that continually revisits topics year after year without closure is to be avoided."
Craig - if I had any hope that anyone in D-11 admin or the BOE would actually read and under this report and what it means, I would forward the above information to them. However, my prior lack of success in generating any interest in the continued failures of this district to impart long term, meaningful mathematical knowledge to most of its students leads me to the conclusion that facts and data are not welcome in this district, especially when the solution might require real thought and real work.
Carla, maybe if this lethargic group of board members and administrators spirals back to the issue of poor math curriculum often enough, they will become familiar with the problem. Then they can hire more administrators to evaluate the problem, then they can hire even more to discuss the problem, then they can purple packet one of Bishop's buddies to lead a committee to look at the problem, then the committee can make a report to the board, then the board can think about the problem, then they can task the administration to address the problem, then the administration can tell the board that they need time to determine if there is a problem, then they can go to the community and tell them how hard they have been working on the problem, and all will be well.
Great! Thanks a lot! This evening I'm headed to the monthly DAAC committee meeting. Now, because of your research and facts, I can't just sit and silently pray that the minds in that room really will produce some sound judgement. Any suggestions for the topic of Math? One that I can hope will give me an enthusiastic response, rather than a scowl.
Please go to the D11 Admin building and check out the books up for public review. The tables are in the hallway upstairs after you've checked in at the front desk. I saw "Everyday Math" on the tables last week. We only have 1 more week to make comments about the books. Oh, the comment cards are on the tables as well.
21 Apr 08
Post a Comment
<< Home