What is the NSF possibly thinking? My thoughts on PD Cubed (PD^3) follow:

What is the NSF possibly thinking??
My thoughts on PD Cubed (PD^3) follow:

In the 2006-2007 School Year, I taught at West Seattle High School.
The University of Washington was a grant recipient from the NSF for Professional Development Cubed. This was a program that involved 3 cities, 3 Universities, and three high schools in each of the 3 cities: Seattle, Cincinnati, McAllen TX.

Seattle’s three high schools were Cleveland, Garfield, and West Seattle. Cleveland and Garfield started the implementation of planned projects SY 2006-2007. West Seattle did not. In spring 2007 Dr. James King of the University of Washington met with WSHS Math Teachers and asked if we would be interested in beginning a project of our choosing as there were resources available to fund a project. He stressed that we did not need to have a project but if we wanted a project we could choose to have one. He also said we could determine what the project would be.

Later that spring after conversations with WSHS math department head, Mark Drost, and other Math faculty I told Dr King that WSHS was interested in using Singapore Math in a remediation program and that would be our project. Dr King told me that Cleveland and Garfield projects centered on implementing Interactive Math Program and that our Singapore Plan was unacceptable. He made it clear that WSHS need to be planning a project similar to Cleveland and Garfield. When I asked him for data that would be supportive of implementing IMP, Dr King could only provide anecdotes. As IMP was unsuccessful in Tacoma and in University place …. there is data to show this, I was less than impressed with anecdotes being as a basis for a questionable project. This made the WSHS choice very easy. WSHS was the first high school in Seattle to begin using Interactive Math Program materials. Most WSHS faculty had no interest in an IMP project. Thus WSHS had no project. We were denied the opportunity to have a Singapore remediation project by Dr King.

In the fall of 2006, Cleveland began using IMP and received additional resources beyond those normally available. Nicole Davis a UW post-grad student with extensive teaching experience was teaching some classes (perhaps 2) at Cleveland and coordinating the IMP implementation at Cleveland.

So how did it go at Cleveland?

You will find the WASL data on the next page.

My question is why does the NSF fund programs that require projects like IMP and discourage trying something that has not already failed?

I think that Dr King exceeded his authority in requiring WSHS to have a project based on IMP or no project.

-----------------
Let us take a look at Cleveland WASL math pass rates from two years before the PD^3 IMP introduction. Cleveland enrollment: 55% Black Students and 25% Asian Students
..........Cleveland::Seattle::State for all students
Spring 2005 23.2%:40.8:47.5
Spring 2006 21.1% 55.7 51.0
Spring 2007 17.9% 50.2 50.4
Spring 2008 12.0% 50.3 49.3

..........Cleveland::Seattle::State for Black students
Spring 2005 16.5% 12.9 20.4
Spring 2006 8.5% 21.7 23.2
Spring 2007 11.1% 19.6 22.5
Spring 2008 6.3% 15.9 22.0

..........Cleveland::Seattle::State for Asian students
Spring 2005 38.0% 45.7 56.9
Spring 2006 42.4% 57.7 59.7
Spring 2007 31.8% 51.9 59.9
Spring 2008 25.0% 56.6 61.1

..........Cleveland for Continuously Enrolled Students
Spring 2005 25.3%
Spring 2006
Spring 2007 19.4%
Spring 2008 13.1%

..........Cleveland for Limited English
Spring 2005 8.3%
Spring 2006 18.8%
Spring 2007 15.4%
Spring 2008 4.5%

..........Cleveland for Low Income
Spring 2005 15.7%
Spring 2006 22.2%
Spring 2007 17.1%
Spring 2008 8.8%