Sunday, October 18, 2015

Staff coup d'état sinks Math in Focus adoption in Seattle.

A fine coup d'état by Seattle Schools Central staff Math Education administrators

Congratulations to Heath and Box, they are doing exactly what is required of all really good followers of Common Core. Administrators look above to bigger administrators to get direction. Unfortunately this direction is support for doomed folly because it neglects the needs of students, parents, and teachers.

1. The Common Core State Standards in math are not internationally benchmarked. The Standards are so behind the standards of high achieving countries that by 8th grade students are at least 2 years behind. CCSS-M version of "College Ready" is not ready for a four-year competitive college, but it is one-size fits-all.

2. CCSS as written and implemented will require colleges to dumb-down levels of many classes because the "college ready" students are not to be placed in remedial classes.

3. This is a plan for H1B tech job visas forever. More Asian nurses and doctors as well.

4. In the SPS this still under construction Central Staff jumbled mishmash curricula will continue the production of students disabled by poor math instruction. It will continue the SPS math achievement gap tradition.

5. The math standards are so weak they do not adequately prepare students for chemistry and physics. Now we will have the rigorous "Next Generation Science Standards", where "Rigorous" means simulating, engaging, and supportive but not careful, precise, and correct. STEM has become more about vendors selling tech stuff to schools than adequately preparing students to undertake careers in math, science, engineering, and manufacturing.

I do not find that aircraft manufacturers design and assemble planes as the planes are taxiing down the runway. ... yet that is the way the elementary school math plan is designed and put together this year in Seattle.

"n" is right on the mark with:

The reason I prefer to stay with the structure of MIF is that
1)we primary teachers are generally not mathy and sticking with a structure keeps us on target

2)I don't trust district math people

3) I am hopeful that MIF has developed a curriculum they can defend in terms of scope and sequence

4)how helpful is it to give teachers - with all they have on our plates - constant changes at the last minute? That is really irritating.

I really question the current governance structure of the SPS, as apparently directors have essentially no control of how adopted materials are used or not used. So much for public input in textbook adoptions.

Director McLaren is right about stability. This is the same type of central staff math leadership as in the last decade. This time with even more Top-Down PD and enforcement.

No comments: