PWC School Board Report – Highlights from the Meeting on March 4, 2009

Even as the March 4th School Board meeting is rapidly receding into the past, the issues it dealt with have not gone away.  In some form or another these issues will again surface.  Citizens need to reflect and consider what happened the last time we dealt with these issues; we need to make our plans.

The post records what happen at the meeting.  In a latter post I will offer my own opinions.

Consent Agenda

These are the more interesting items that were approved as part of the Consent Agenda.  The School Board approved the following.

• Transfer of $8,018,018 from the available proffer account to the School Division construction account.  See here.
• Confirmation of School Board Poll of February 11 Regarding the American Recovery and Reinvestment Bill of 2009 (Federal Stimulus Package). If you want to know the position of your School Board member, see here.  Each board member either abstained or took a position.  The results are interesting and somewhat disappointing.
  
• Confirmation of School Board Poll of February 18 Regarding House Joint Resolution 725 to Amend Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution of Virginia.  This amendment is designed to protect property owners from the excessive use of eminent domain.   If you want to know the position of your School Board member, see here.

Citizen Comments

Seven citizens provided comments.  Most of the comments were on Math Investigations.

• One parent spoke in favor of the 10 point grading scale.
• Four parents spoke in favor of the Opt-In for Traditional Math.  They complained that because teachers are not doing it parents now have to teach traditional math algorithms to the children.   They said the blended approach (the School Board’s current approach) is not working.  They pointed to the fact that the studies justifying Math Investigations have failed peer review (see here).  They said that those math programs that are doing well have a focused and rigorous curriculum that challenges children.  They pointed to a document on the Prince William County Schools (PWCS) web site (see Evidence of Success with Investigations in Other School Districts from here) that is being used to justify Math Investigations.  When a parent investigated, she found schools are dropping Investigations in Number, Data, and Space^®, published by Pearson Scott Foresman, the backbone of the PWCS Math Investigations program (see Success Story Survey).  For further information on parental complaints see a paper on this blog (here), PWC Education Reform Blog, and Teach Math Right.
• One teacher spoke in favor of Math Investigations.  She believes it fulfills a pledge she made to make math fun for children to learn.  She believes Traditional Math closes the door on the ability of some children to learn math.
• Bonnie Klakowicz, the President of the Prince William Education Association, came to speak about the school budget and advocate spending more on education (That is, after all, what teacher’s union reps do.).

Traditional High School Feasibility Study

The School Board approved 8 – 0 a motion have staff prepare a study on the feasibility and requirements to implement a traditional high school.

Opt-In for Traditional Math

The School Board split 4 – 4 on approving this change (see here) to the mathematics curriculum.  So the Opt-In proposal did not pass.  Milt Johns, Gil Trenum, Betty Covington, and Julie Lucas supported the proposal.  Don Richardson, Grant Lattin, Denita Ramirez, and Dr. Michael Otaigbe opposed it.

The debate went on for a considerable time, and it is apparent each board member sees the problem somewhat differently.  Here is a summary their positions.

• Trenum believes a significant number of parents and teachers oppose Math Investigations.  He has received a significant number of emails.  He pointed to PWCS surveys which says almost half the parents and teachers are not happy with the program.  He went on to say that when the School Board approved the Math Investigations program it took sides in a 20 year war that began with a program once called Reform Math.   He noted that states such as California have repudiated the program (see here).  Trenum quoted critics such as William Schmid, a professor of mathematics at Harvard University, “By the end of fifth grade, TERC students have fallen roughly two years behind where they should be.”
• Covington also noted that a significant number of parents oppose Math Investigations.  She thinks Math Investigation interferes with the ability of some parents to help their children.  However, she did not oppose Math Investigations; she advocated parental choice.   She said the Opt-In Option for Traditional Math did not mean the end of Math Investigations.  She did not see any reason why PWCS could not offer both curriculums, creating a win for everyone.
• Ramirez said she was not hearing the complaints.  She said her district includes many low-income residents and Math Investigations works better for the children in her district.  She also said she wants data before she changes anything.
• Julie Lucas said she was receiving few complaints from parents in her district.  Nonetheless, she made it clear she was aware of complaints from outside her district.  Because she was concern that Math Investigations was not being implemented as intended, she voted for the Opt-In Option.  She noted that the blended Math Investigations/Traditional  Math approach had had its chance and the situation did seem to be improving.  She gave an example of a school where the principal took the initiative and supplemented Math Investigation.  That school achieved good results.  Lucas also expressed concerns over the fact the Virginia Department of Education has not approved Investigations in Number, Data, and Space^® for the fifth grade.  Lucas suggested not implementing Math Investigations in the fifth grade and using the savings to fund the Opt-In Option for Traditional Math.
• Lattin attempted to refute the evidence that there is no evidence supporting Math Investigations.  He asked the Math Supervisor for Elementary Mathematics Programs about a couple of criticisms of the Math Investigations program.  She spoke of a study,  Comparison of 4 Elementary Math Curricula.  In a comparsion of four texts, Investigations in Number, Data, and Space^® had scored at the bottom.  She claimed the results of the study were not applicable.  She said PWCS is using the second edition of Investigations in Number, Data, and Space^®, not the first edition used in the study.  In addition, she said that the schools cited in the study had provided the study teachers with professional training that the PWCS staff had provided its teachers.  She also defended the Evidence of Success with Investigations in Other School Districts.  She said that conclusions reached in Success Story Survey were wrong, that most schools cited in the survey were still using Investigations in Number, Data, and Space^® or a similar text book.  Lattin added Math Investigations is working at half the school and not working at the other half.  He said the half of the schools where Math Investigations is not working have failed to embrace Math Investigations.  Lattin believes we cannot afford to go back.  He cited some distressing statistics from Rising Above the Gathering Storm:  Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future (This site provides a pdf file of executive summary available for download.  The statistics start on page 14.).   The study Lattin cited shows that in last generation the United State has become less competitive.  Lattin apparently sees Math Investigations as necessary to improving America’s children standing in mathematics and restoring the nation’s competitive standing.
• Otaigbe approached the issue from a managerial perspective.  The board, he said, makes policy, and the staff implements the board’s policy.  Because it defines the implementation method, the Opt-In Option for Traditional Math would cause confusion.  The staff is clearly against the Opt-In Option for Traditional Math.  If the board forces the issue, it will be unable to hold the staff accountable.
• Richardson endorsed the views of his colleagues against the Opt-In Option for Traditional Math.  Richardson apparently considers the Opt-In Option for Traditional Math equivalent to giving up on Math Investigations.   He added this analogy.  If you have a two-year old car, you don’t throw it out; you get a tuneup.  Richardson also said he is not participating in the Math Wars; he just cares what works.
• Johns supported the Opt-In Option for Traditional Math.  He believes parents know best, and he does not see a significant logistical problem arising from the Opt-In Option for Traditional Math.  Instead, where the blended/balanced approach has failed, Johns sees the Opt-In Option for Traditional Math as providing resolution.  Johns got in a little dig at Lattin’s statistical observations from the study he cites.  John suggested that instead going back to traditional math as it was taught a generation ago, it might be better to go a couple of generations back.  Johns also offered some statistics of his own generated from this Virginia Department of Education website here.  The numbers show the changes the SOL results between the 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 school years.  The fifth grade results were from children not taught using Math Investigations.  Johns did not oversell his numbers.  He noted that the scores at each school did not necessarily go up or down all that much.
  

  Difference Between  2006-2007 and 2007 -2008 School Years	Number of Schools Up	Number of Schools Down	No Change
  Third Grade Pass Rate	19	31	5
  Third Grad Pass Advanced Rate	21	31	3
  Fifth Grade Pass Rate	4	1	1
  Fifth Grade Pass Advanced Rate	5	1
  Overall Pass Rate	35	17	3
  Overall Pass Advanced Rate	42	11	2

Traditional Math in Elementary Schools

With some modifications, the board approved Otaigbe’s motion (original motion here) implement a consistent and blended approach to mathematics education that includes both elements of Math Investigations and Traditional Math.  Trenum, Johns, Covington, and Lucas fought to strengthen the motion (i.e., enforce the addition of traditional mathematics to the curriculum), but they encountered budget constraints and management issues.  The third, fourth, and the fifth  bullets in Otaigbe’s motion were amended.

• The third bullet was weaken due to cost concerns.  Instead of making traditional math materials available to every student, traditional mathematics materials will be made available as necessary.
• The fourth bullet now directs principals to work with their staff and parents to implement a balance/blended approach.
• The fifth bullet provides clearer direction that allows teachers to depart from the pacing guides as needed to meet SOL objectives.

Because the process of generating the amendments was somewhat circuitous (to say the least), I decided not to attempt posting the exact wording.  When the minutes of the March 4th meeting are approved, I will post the revised motion.

It remains uncertain how the 8-0 passage of Otaigbe’s motion changes anything.  Trenum observed that with the failure of the board to pass the Opt-In Option for Tradition Math, the board has effectively doubled down on the current approach.  When asked what he thought of the passage of this motion, Superintendent Walts effectively echoed Trenum’s statement.   He said PWCS will enforce and implement the balance/blended approach it has already initiated.   When Lattin was asked what he thought of the motion, he thought the board’s motion made teachers and principals more responsible and therefore more accountable.  Hopefully, Walts and his administrators have something similar in mind.

What the papers and blogs had to say

After the meeting Johns told the Washington Post he anticipates problems down the road.

“The board was split between rubberstamping everything from the administration and giving voice and a choice to parents on an instructional matter,” said Johns, who voted in favor of the measure. “The bottom line is that this board has overwhelmingly backed the superintendent and instructional leadership of the school system in almost every issue. This is probably the first occasion with this board where there’s been a significant split.”

Johns said the unresolved debate is important because the School Board might face another instructional battle in the spring, when it’s time to review new history books for high school. Some high schools, he said, use books that are “replete with unmitigated liberal bias” and that discuss the collapse of the Soviet Union without mentioning President Ronald Reagan.  (from here)

In addition to providing some examples of “Math Investigations,” the dcexaminer.com provided some quotes.  For example, here is the following statement by Ramirez (from the meeting).

“Quite frankly, we have seen progress in the schools in my district,” said board member Denita Ramirez, who represent Woodbridge. “I can’t imagine changing what’s working in the classrooms in my district.”   (from here)

The American Board for Certification of Teacher Excellence (I am not familiar with this outfit.) has a blog.  Their blogger does not seem to care for Math Investigations (see here).

Implementing a 10-point Grading Scale

The board approve a motion directing the Superintendent to present recommendations on a ten-point grading scale at the April 1 meeting.  That’s April Fools Day.   Hmmm.