Administrators, board members need reality check

I challenge district board members and administrators to go out into the school district and start working with the children. I’m not talking about photo ops, obsequious gift giving, and meaningless meet-and-greets of the great, unwashed masses. I’m talking about working with the children, sitting down with them to tutor them in arithmetic, talking with them in all seriousness about their education, finding out how it’s been going, what their challenges are, what they would like to see happen, and what they really need. I’m talking about regular, quality time, every month.

If school administrators were open to learning something – and not just interested in hearing what they already believe – then working with the students could be a real education, a comeuppance, and a humbling experience.

“Keep it real, dude” should be the law – or at least district policy. But it’s easier to avoid reality, to make policy from afar, to field phone calls off the record, and to hold meetings where no one has to answer questions. My goal, therefore, is to help administrators keep it real.

Hey, here comes some reality now.

I’ve spoken at length with a Spokane principal about a free tutoring program for some of his K-6 students. At the end of the last conversation, I could see I would have to take my tutoring program elsewhere. It isn’t that he can’t use the help. In his school last spring, just 63% of the 4th graders and 59% of the 6th graders passed the state standardized math tests. It isn’t that he can’t let me in the door. I’m not a whacko, drug addict or criminal. I’ve volunteered in this school district for the last six years. The reasons I took my tutoring elsewhere are these:

1. I want to teach arithmetic. The principal insisted he wouldn’t feel “comfortable” unless I taught multiple ways to solve math problems. He did NOT want me to focus on traditional algorithms.
2. I want to teach arithmetic. The principal said he wants me to include other subjects in the tutoring (such as language arts).
3. I know my limitations. The principal said he wants me to include all types of learners, including students who qualify for special education. When I made it clear I’m not trained in special education, he accused me of not meaning it when I said everyone can learn arithmetic.
4. He said there is no money available for tutoring in arithmetic. Therefore, parents would be charged for something their children should be getting for free in the classroom.

What a mess.

The principal and I batted this conversation back and forth for more than an hour. He kept saying the same meaningless things over and over.

“Why do the students even need the Lattice Method?” I asked him at one point.
“So they can get a deeper understanding of the concept,” he said.
“Right, so we teach the traditional algorithm, we show them how it works, we have them practice it, and they get that deeper understanding,” I said. “Why do they need the Lattice Method?”
Pause. “So they can get a deeper understanding,” he said firmly, still certain.

At last, reluctantly, I gave up. I got in touch with a local tutor, who invited me to volunteer at an outreach center. And there, I must say, I am getting one hell of an education.

The students there have heartbreaking challenges in their life, and I can do nothing at all about most of them. Despite the fact that reform math is supposed to help disadvantaged students, these students have the same gaps in math knowledge as everybody else (exacerbated by the additional challenges).

I also found out that high school students who don’t have basic arithmetic skills can be enrolled in Algebra I. They also can be enrolled in Advanced Placement classes. (They’re likely to fail or drop out of these classes, of course, whereupon some administrators will say, “Well, they must have learned something while they were there.”)

I heard that some school counselors advise vulnerable students as follows: “Don’t worry about the exams. To go to the Skills Center or ROTC or college, you need these classes on your transcript. Just take the classes and do a portfolio or project at the end. They’ll let you graduate and then you can do what you want.”

These high school students are nervous, scared even – filled with bravado and doubt in equal portions, frightened of looking stupid. “I’m not (worried) about it,” one of them said to me repeatedly, not meeting my gaze. Watching him, I pondered the “discovery” learning method, so enthusiastically and inexplicably embraced by the schools. Like everyone else, this student will be told to work in groups and on his own to “discover” his own methods. I imagined him trying to discover thousands of years of math by trial and error. It made me angry. He needs to be taught, not pitched back into the hell of the Discovery Dog and Pony Show. But what do district administrators know of him or the other students in this district? What do board members know? Very little. Next to nothing. Maybe nothing at all.

I have an idea. District administrators and board members should set a policy of going into the schools each month for a certain amount of time, where they must tutor the students. If they do this, they’ll see 4th graders who already hate mathematics, 6th-graders who add on their fingers, and high school students who aren’t sure of how to do long division. They’ll see smart but ill-prepared students who flunked out of their AP classes and who now worry their friends see them as stupid.

They’ll see kids with fierce dreams, daunting fears and multiple life challenges – kids whose future looms large and forbidding in their mind. They’ll see that by high school, the students’ gaps in critical academic skills and knowledge are enormous, monstrous, and seemingly insurmountable.

They’ll see principals who are absolutely certain beyond any shadow of a doubt that current teaching methods will work, despite the entire last decade of contrary evidence.

Unless they are willfully blind to it, administrators and board members will see their hand in this mess, and they’ll see the gargantuan gap between what they’re doing and what they could and should be doing.

It’s so easy for administrators to sit around and make policy, to approve this or that, pontificate about how great things are, go on television and moan about a pretend lack of money, and commiserate with each other about how parents, students, legislators and teachers are to blame for the low test scores. "Stay in school,” they tell students. “Work hard. Do your best. Take this seriously.” As if that fixes it. It’s harder to go into the classroom and find out how things really are. It’s harder to go to PTA meetings and listen to frustrated parents. It’s harder to watch as children valiantly attempt to follow ineffectual district curricula and policies.

It’s really hard to sit in the hallway with a 4th-grader and his math homework and try to convince him that he is NOT stupid, that math is NOT hard, that he WILL get it -- all the while knowing that he’s going back to a curriculum that will continue to confuse him. It’s really easy to show that child how to do it properly and to help him practice it. It’s really rewarding to see him get it. It’s really stupid that this tutoring process is so necessary right now. It’s criminal that administrative roadblocks keep it from happening.

Here’s my challenge to administrators and school board members. If you’re really there to do some good, then get out of your office, sit down with the students and start learning something. Your customers have something to teach you.


Please note: The information in this post is copyrighted. The proper citation is:
Rogers, L. (September, 2009). "Administrators, board members need reality check." Retrieved (date) from the Betrayed Web site: http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailing.blogspot.com/

This article was published Sept. 16, 2009, on ednews.org at http://www.ednews.org/articles/administrators-board-members-need-reality-check-.html

District says no one knows how to fix math problem

Before I quote from the Feb. 11, 2009, meeting minutes of the board of Spokane Public Schools, I’ll review some events of the last two years:

• The National Mathematics Advisory Panel issued recommendations that called for more traditional approaches to math instruction (i.e. traditional algorithms, caution with calculator use, more practicing of skills, and increased rigor).
• Washington’s K-12 math standards were completely revamped, calling for more traditional content.
• For 20 years, mathematicians have criticized the reform math curricula widely used across Washington (and throughout Spokane Public Schools). These curricula also were hammered in Washington’s recent curricula assessments.
• Washington State’s Department of Education (OSPI) issued recommendations for K-8 math curricula that are based on the new standards. The curricula used in Spokane are not on the list. Expectations are that Spokane’s high school curriculum also will be rejected.
• Advocates have repeatedly asked school boards across the nation to replace reform math curricula with more traditional curricula.

You get the gist. Spokane needs to adopt more traditional math curricula. Waiting only prolongs the students’ agony. The district already has recommendations for K-8 math curricula that were vetted by people who support a traditional track. All the board has to do is adopt some of them. Now I can quote from the Feb. 11 meeting minutes, located at http://www.spokaneschools.org/Board/minutes/02-11-09.pdf .

“NEW BUSINESS
Teaching and Learning Services
Middle School Math Update

Ms. Bridget Lewis, executive director for Teaching and Learning Services, introduced Ms. Gina Rye, middle school math coordinator, and Mr. Rick Biggerstaff, secondary math coordinator. … Ms. Lewis commented that the staff needs to dig deeper in terms of the grade 6 to 7 transition. President Treppiedi asked the staff to help the board understand why middle school math scores are as low as they have been. It was his opinion that there is a lack of rigor in the elementary schools. Ms. Lewis responded that the data across the state and nation is not unique to Spokane. She said no one has the answer; however, the staff does know that they have to pay close attention to what is happening in the classroom. She pointed out that the data shows that Spokane has more students taking advanced placement math and all students are taking more mathematics. … Dr. Stowell noted that grades 3 through 7 math scores are higher than the state average. In spite of not having all of the answers, the scores are moving in the right direction. She stated that math and science summer camps and math coaches would help, but it is difficult to fill the open teaching spots.
Ms. Lewis added that it is going to take multiple strategies such as standards-based grading, math labs, and professional learning in order to improve mathematics instruction. Director Douthitt indicated that the board would like to hear more ideas about adaptive changes. Director Bierman agreed that change takes time; he felt, however, that the math program is on the wrong track and needs to be distinctly different from what it is today, in both the language and the model that is used. Director Douthitt expressed appreciation for the way this presentation was constructed. He conceded that the frustration is that no one has figured out how to solve the problem. Because the district will still face the dilemma in 2014, he didn’t want the team to be constrained by saying 'we can’t do this.' Ms. Lewis said the team wants to look at this very straight forward and determine how to get at the hard questions.” I’ll offer some thoughts on certain portions of these meeting minutes.

“…the staff needs to dig deeper in terms of the grade 6 to 7 transition.”
What does this mean? Does it mean to replace the math curriculum? If not, they can “dig” as deeply as they want; they’ll never reach the solution.

“Ms. Lewis responded that the data … is not unique to Spokane.”
This statement is true, but it doesn’t mean an answer isn’t available. Indeed, it points to a national failure with reform math curricula.

"(Ms. Lewis) said no one has the answer; however, the staff does know that they have to pay close attention to what is happening in the classroom.”
Actually, we have the answer, and it’s clear: Replace the curricula with more traditional approaches. For some inexplicable reason, district employees obstinately refuse to say so.
It’s true that staff members should “pay close attention to what is happening in the classroom.” If they were, they would notice that students aren’t learning sufficient mathematics.

“(Ms. Lewis) pointed out that the data shows that Spokane has more students taking advanced placement math and all students are taking more mathematics.”
More students are indeed taking AP classes – please see http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailing.blogspot.com/2008/12/district-view-of-ap-classes-at-odds.html for proof that substantially more students also are failing to pass the AP exams.
I reject the statement that “all students are taking more mathematics.” Some might be taking more math classes, but if the classes were effective, students would know more math than they do.

“Dr. Stowell noted that grades 3 through 7 math scores are higher than the state average.”
So what? Spokane’s 2008 math WASL scores look like this:

Grade Level Math
3rd Grade - 75.2%
4th Grade - 60.7%
5th Grade - 69.2%
6th Grade - 55.9%
7th Grade - 52.4%
8th Grade - 49.5%
10th Grade - 45.9%

“(Dr. Stowell said) in spite of not having all of the answers, the scores are moving in the right direction.”
District staff members do have the answers; they just refuse to acknowledge them. You tell me – do the 2008 math WASL scores look like they’re “moving in the right direction”?

A few of the statements can be dealt with together: "(Dr. Stowell) stated that math and science summer camps and math coaches would help, but it is difficult to fill the open teaching spots.”

“Ms. Lewis added that it is going to take multiple strategies such as standards-based grading, math labs, and professional learning in order to improve mathematics instruction.”

“(Director Douthitt) conceded that the frustration is that no one has figured out how to solve the problem."

“Ms. Lewis said the team wants to look at this very straight forward and determine how to get at the hard questions.”

Shall we laugh or cry? It’s the curriculum, the curriculum, the curriculum! Replacing the reform curricula with more traditional approaches is what will improve mathematics instruction. Why won’t they say it?
One begins to wonder if some of these people own stock in companies that publish reform curricula.

Folks, this is what is being done on your behalf. Director Jeff Bierman appears to be almost alone in the district in speaking out on behalf of a better approach. Please add your voice to his and/or vote with your feet. Quite literally, the children’s futures are at stake.

Please note: The information in this post is copyrighted. The proper citation is:
Rogers, L. (March, 2009). "District says no one knows how to fix math problem." Retrieved (date) from the Betrayed Web site: http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailing.blogspot.com/