Tuesday, August 25, 2009

League of Voters: Math Science update

Lots of links here:

http://levfoundation.ngphost.com/issues/k12_education/mathandscience


and from CNN
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/08/25/students.science.math/index.html

Some districts figure it out but not Seattle

In looking at the percentage of students scoring at Level 1 (the clueless level) from 2006 to 2009 WASL math at grade 4 got worse for both Seattle and the State.
Seattle increased math time to 75 minutes per day for both 2007-2008 and 2008-2009.
Let us compare Seattle growth in level 1 scores with the State.

Seattle:
White = 1.6%
Low Income = 5.2%
Limited English = 5.6%
Black = 8.9%
Hispanic = 10.4%


State:
White = 3.6%
Low Income = 5.6%
Limited English = 12.3%
Black = 6.3%
Hispanic = 6.2%
No surprise that the State scores are getting worse. WA districts are using about 1/3 Everyday Math, 1/3 Terc/Investigations, and overall about 95% of schools are using reform math programs in k-5. The Good News is after a decade of failure many districts like Clover Park want out and have adopted non-reform materials for this year.

The bad news is Seattle just keeps of believing that there is no need to change.
The School Board voted another $400,000 plus into Everyday Math this spring.
Seattle continues to under serve Black and Hispanic Students with ineffective math programs and practices. Instructional materials choices neglect those struggling to learn mathematics.
The Central Administration is intent on continuing the EDM debacle and the Board approves. It is time for a public meeting to discuss this.

Sunday, August 23, 2009

Request for EDM meeting. A Seattle civil rights issue and more.

Here is my latest thought....

Dear Director DeBell,
Please schedule a public meeting as required by section (f) of RCW 28A.150.230 to discuss discontinuing the use of the ineffective Everyday Math instructional materials.
We the undersigned object to the use of these objectionable materials.

---------------
Background:

The February 2005 Notices of the American Mathematical Society Volume 52, Number 2 article: Racial Equity Requires Teaching Elementary School Teachers More Mathematics contained the following:
-----
-----
Patricia Clark Kenshaft, professor of mathematics at Montclair State University, did a survey in the mid-1980s of black mathematicians in New Jersey. Seventy-five black people with at least one degree in mathematics responded to a variety of questions, including, “What can be done to bring more blacks into mathematics?

The most common answer was, “Teach mathematics better to all American children. The way it is now, if children don’t learn mathematics at home, they don’t learn it at all, so any ethnic group that is underrepresented in mathematics will remain so until children are taught mathematics better in elementary school.
….
Those of us who thrive mathematically have had some good mathematical experience early, typically at home. Someone had asked for an example out of my own childhood, and I had explained how my father had described the meaning of π to me several months before I started kindergarten.

----
----
While the above survey took place in the mid-80s, it certainly describes Seattle’s elementary school Everyday Math program. Please consider the following information:

Seattle for the last two years increased math class time to 75 minutes per day, invested heavily in professional development and coaching, and carefully followed the EDM pacing plan. Seattle used mostly TERC/Investigations (a poor program) prior to EDM. The percentage of students scoring at level 1 (the clueless level on math testing) has increased in the last two years from already unacceptable levels of 2006. Here are the last four years of grade 4 Seattle Math WASL results (note EDM gets the credit for the last two).

Spring 2006 : 2007 : 2008 : 2009
White: 5.9% : 7.9% : 9.3% : 7.5%
Hispanic: 28.5% : 33.6% : 40.4% : 38.9%
Low Income: 33.0% : 36.0% : 40.0% : 38.2%
Black: 39.2% : 40.5% : 44.4% : 48.1%
Limited English: 45.3% : 52.2% : 58.0% : 50.9%

From 2006 to 2009 the Math Level 1 absolute differentials all increased:
White = 1.6%
Low Income = 5.2%
Limited English = 5.6%
Black = 8.9%
Hispanic = 10.4%

For Seattle any ethnic group that is underrepresented in mathematics will remain so.

The What Works Clearinghouse said: “Everyday Mathematics was found to have potentially positive effects on students' math achievement.” Last updated 4-30-07 and based on 12,600 students grade 3-5. The increases reported were based on a comparison with extremely poor instructional materials and discounted the effect of affluent parents. Clearly Seattle’s EDM experience has not been positive.

EDM has too many topics per grade level; it does not teach to mastery, it emphasizes its own focus algorithms rather than the traditional standard algorithms. It does not teach Long Division perhaps because it glosses over the multiplication needed for long division to be attempted.

The National Math Advisory Panel recommends against the EDM type of spiraling. The NMAP also recommends “Explicit Instruction” for those struggling to learn math. In Seattle, which adopted EDM on May 30, 2007, two years of state test data at grade 4 reveal a colossal failure of EDM instructional materials.

Math lessons add up -- NOT

CENTRE COUNTY SCHOOLS
Math lessons add up
Districts see improvements after implementing ‘everyday’ approach to mathematics
by Ed Mahon

http://www.centredaily.com/news/local/story/1465296.html

My response to this article follows:
The article names no districts that saw improvements. An inspection of the research on the 12,600 grades 3-5 students used reveals serious questions.


From the article:
Everyday Math (EDM) as one of two math programs with enough data to prove it’s had a positive impact on student achievement. On average, performance increases by 6 percentile points, the research found.


Here is what WWC really said: “Everyday Mathematics was found to have potentially positive effects on students' math achievement.” Last updated 4-30-07 and based on 12,600 students grade 3-5.

EDM has too many topics per grade level; it does not teach to mastery, it emphasizes its own focus algorithms rather than the traditional standard algorithms. It does not teach Long Division perhaps because it glosses over the multiplication needed for long division to be attempted. They recommend pick up a calculator for division.

The National Math Advisory Panel recommends against the EDM type of spiraling. The NMAP also recommends “Explicit Instruction” for those struggling to learn math. In Seattle, which adopted EDM on May 30, 2007, two years of state test data at grade 4 reveal a colossal failure. {Much like Denver's EDM - Connected Math k-8 combination.. another BIG failure}

Seattle for the last two years increased math class time to 75 minutes per day, invested heavily in professional development and coaching, and carefully followed the EDM pacing plan. Seattle used mostly TERC/Investigations (a poor program) prior to EDM. The percentage of students scoring at level 1 (the clueless level on math testing) increased in the last two years from already unacceptable levels. Here are the last four years of Level 1 scores - note EDM gets the credit for the last two.

year : 2006 :2007 : 2008 : 2009
White: 5.9% : 7.9% : 9.3% : 7.5%
Hispanic: 28.5% : 33.6% : 40.4% : 38.9%
Low Income : 33.0% : 36.0% : 40.0% : 38.2%
Black : 39.2% : 40.5% : 44.4% : 48.1%
Lim English : 45.3% : 52.2% : 58.0% : 50.9%

Education fails to use relevant data to make intelligent decisions. Fads and adherence to failed ideology are preferred over empirical evidence. Read John Hattie’s “Visible Learning” to find out those practices, which actually work.

Wednesday, August 19, 2009

12 of 13 HS's in Seattle scored Math WASL lower in 2009

Dear Seattle School Director,

This week you received an analysis of Math scores by David Orbits. Both Mr. Orbits and I are concerned with the failure of decision-makers in mathematics to adequately serve educationally disadvantaged learners. Empirical research is disregarded by decision-makers to the detriment of disadvantaged learners.

I have decided to look at results in Bethel SD, which uses EDM – Connected – Discovering just as Seattle will be doing this year. Bethel adopted EDM the same year as Seattle both have used Everyday Math for two full school years. Bethel has used the Discovering Series for three years. There are shocking similarities in the Discovering results from Bethel that parallel the inadequacies of IMP at Cleveland over the same three years. Bethel’s level 1 numbers were declining until Discovering was adopted and then began rising. Here are Bethel’s Level 1 absolute numbers for the three years before and then three years after:
2004 : 2005 : 2006 ::-:: 2007 : 2008 : 2009
525 ...478 ... 361 .:-: ..470 .. 501 : 555

In my comparisons, I tried to look over a span of years where the initial state score was near the 2009 state score for all students. Grade four from 2003 to 2009. Grade 7 from 2005 to 2007. Grade 10 from 2004 to 2009. Because in 2006 Seattle changed who was tested as a 10 grade WASL student I did not do a span comparison of Seattle at grade 10. This Seattle change resulted in 10th grade math pass rate moving from 40% to 55% in one year. The grade 7 Math WASL was significantly altered prior to 2005.

I wish I had a better test than the WASL to use.
I still have yet to get any results from the Fall 2008 PSAT given district wide to 10th graders.

It should be noted that the re-classification change in 2006 reduced the number of students classified as 10th graders substantially from 2005 numbers by the following percentages:
ALL = -24% ; White = -16% ; Black = -38.5% ; Low Income = -41.5% (This gives a nice guide to which student groups are not being well served by the district. Only 6 of 10 low Income Students advanced from grade 9 to grade 10 in 2006.)

I hope you find the following data pages useful. I leave you with three thoughts:
1… Where is the data that shows Seattle has achieved performance that is superior or equal to that achieved by successful programs (not simply the administration’s last unsuccessful attempt)?
2… Those in the direct instruction program (k-3) were twice as likely as their peers in other programs to graduate from high school. (Project Follow Through). Why does the district distain Direct Instruction in Math and other subjects and yet claim to be concerned about disadvantaged learners and the achievement gaps?
3… Cleveland increased its WASL math score in 2009 moving from last place in the district to above Rainier Beach. Only Cleveland scored higher in 2009 than in 2008. Still 56.6% of Cleveland Students could not score above level 1. All other 9 comprehensive high schools scored lower in Math than last year as did Nova, Center, and Pathfinder. A sound k-8 program is the basis for high school success and k-4 years are of most importance.

Sincerely,

Danaher M. Dempsey, Jr.

If anyone would like the Bethel and SPS data write me at:

dempsey_dan@yahoo.com

Sunday, August 16, 2009

Seattle Testimony for Wed. August 19th

Studies by Lipping Ma and others inform us that for over 100 years US k-12 math education has been poor. Traditional Math, New Math, or Reform Math all were and are inadequate.

There is a new world, a flatter world, and internationally competitive math is required for national success. Some see US public education as a monopoly that chooses not to compete. I see Seattle choosing to be internationally non-competitive in math and out of touch with reality.

A competitive math program requires coherence in the order of topics taught and a focus on fewer topics at each grade level. Instead Seattle chooses the ineffective, incoherent, unfocused Everyday Math spiral with no mastery needed or intended.

NMAP recommends “Explicit Instruction” for struggling students based on “examples” but Seattle ignores this strongly recommended effective practice. The NCTM focal points recommend a narrowing of topics at each grade level. Seattle pursued the exact opposite last year “The Everyday Math” pacing plan.

Hattie reports: Direct Instruction, Mastery Learning, Problem Solving-Teaching, and Worked Examples all have effect sizes greater than half a standard deviation; but Seattle chooses inferior strategies.

Inquiry based teaching is only half as effective as direct instruction. Problem-based learning is only one fourth as effective as problem solving. There is no empirical research available on differentiated instruction.

NMAP recommends a focus on “Authentic Algebra”, but Seattle chooses to waste time off-task teaching inappropriate pseudo-statistics.

Intel and Microsoft use H1B Visas or relocate outside the US because districts like Seattle refuse to effectively teach Math to students.

The empirical research is there. Effective practices and programs are available but Seattle regularly chooses grossly ineffective fads over proven success. Job postings for math coaches talk about “Best Practices” and effective use of adopted instructional materials.

Seattle’s non-competitive math monopoly trains employees to be ineffective. Teachers must use poorly selected instructional materials and strategies with low effect sizes.

Deming tells us that at least 85% of any system’s performance inadequacies are structural in nature, while at most 15% could be due to employee inadequacy.

Seattle Math is a structural mess. How can the superintendent possibly suggest merit-based pay. Merit and Seattle’s math direction are polar opposites. To serve the children and the nation this board must require empirically based decision-making. Coaching teachers in using non-competitive materials and ineffective practices is typical in Seattle math and a continuing waste of resources. This must Stop.

Wednesday, August 5, 2009

Bill & Melinda - they mean so well
...they're trying so hard...

Another story that again reveals a shocking lack of evidence on the part of the establishment and many of those seeking improvement.

Compton and Barrett rock!!!!

Bob Compton at 2 million minutes writes
http://2mm.typepad.com/usa/2009/08/poor-bill-melinda-they-mean-so-well-but-they-are-so-clueless.html

Bill & Melinda - they mean so well...they're trying so hard...

But they are so misguided.
--------------------------------------------------
Here is my response:

Nice title "They mean so well"
..... reminds me of Dr. Richard A. Askey's paper:
"Good Intentions are not Enough".
http://www.math.wisc.edu/~askey/ask-gian.pdf

July 20, 21 more from GATES a (misguided) math conference......

IMAGINE: Mathematics Assessment For Learning
A Convening of Practitioners and Partners

http://www.gatesfoundation.org/edextranet/Pages/ImagineConvening2009.aspx

Again more talking about math education but no real concrete classroom recommendations.

Read John Hattie's "Visible Learning".
http://www.amazon.com/Visible-Learning-synthesis-meta-analyses-achievement/dp/0415476186
Hattie provides the evidence needed to make informed instructional decisions.

Education blunders on because "Fads" and a "Club Ed" politically correct ideology drive decision-making NOT evidence. Gates foundation has yet to interrupt this. The consultants and other pseudo-experts on education have helped push the USA into an enormous hole. I see NO evidence they are capable of guiding us out.

The local school districts like Seattle still believe in "Best Math Practices" etc. that have no evidentiary validation.

The UW in collaboration with the Seattle schools devised a school NSF/EHR funded project at Cleveland High School from 2006-2009 using the "exemplary" Interactive Math Program,
http://www.math.uic.edu/~cpmp/
a problem-based mathematics curriculum. The results were a disaster. Hattie found "problem-based" learning to have an effect size of 0.15. He recommends effect sizes of 0.40 or greater for proposed innovations. Check the Cleveland HS 10th grade 2008 math score for students who experienced the full two years of this program:

http://reportcard.ospi.k12.wa.us/waslTrend.aspx?groupLevel=District&schoolId=1070&reportLevel=School&orgLinkId=1070&yrs=&year=&gradeLevelId=10&waslCategory=1&chartType=1

Unfortunately .... accountability is absent and evidence is ignored.

Seattle has chosen to top off their misdirected k-8 math program of Everyday Math and Connected Math 2 with "Discovering Algebra" and "Discovering Geometry".

Discovering Algebra : An Investigative Approach
http://www.keypress.com/x5265.xml
Effect size of 0.31 for Inquiry Learning.

The National Math Advisory Panel recommends explicit instruction for those struggling to learn math, which in Seattle is at least 50% of the student population. Instead the district decides on:

1..... Investigations at the beginning of each lesson help you give all your students—regardless of their mathematical backgrounds—a shared experience from which to base their learning.
2.... You will be able to teach an algebra course that is both rigorous and accessible to your students because the investigations give meaning to mathematics that all students, regardless of their skill level, can understand.

To improve a system requires the intelligent application of relevant data NOT just belief in publisher's fairy-tales.

Direct Instruction (0.59)
Mastery Learning (0.58)
Problem Solving teaching (0.61)
Worked Examples (0.57)

The above could have been a positive beginning in attempting to correct over a decade of malpractice. Instead Seattle blunders on.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Compton wrote:

If America would just listen to Craig Barrett we'd be half way to a world class education. The steps are simple:

1- set the curriculum to the same level of difficulty as your economic competitors (sort of like training to win in a globally competitive sport - train as intensely as your competitors and you may have a shot)

2- hire teachers with Masters degrees in the discipline they are to teach and then coach them on being effective teachers. It is much easier to coach an MS in Physics on how to teach, than to coach an Education major to be a physicist. Try it at home; see for yourself.

{so is there any evidence Seattle could coach anyone in math or science to be an effective teacher?}

3- measure results - use the AP exams as national standards and test to see how students and teachers are progressing.

Has anyone other than a few US Charter schools (and 400 million Indians and Chinese) tried that simple formula?
----------------------------------------------------
In regard to #1 Seattle prefers to run away and hide with "Discovering" Math series from Key Curriculum Press....... Seattle has not even figured out where the playing field is, thus competing is out of the question.

In regard to #2 Salaries and instructional materials selections are so bad who would even consider working in this system a reasonable undertaking? Seattle's last two math program managers produced the math show but had NO undergraduate degree in mathematics. Masters degrees in content areas for teachers is a big reach when the math program managers and math coaches often do not have undergraduate degrees in mathematics.

I would suggest as #4 a reasonable but often neglected starting place is to get grades k-4 squared away. "Project Follow Through" would be a great starting place.