The following letter was presented to the Bellevue School District Board today. As much as I would love to see the hind side of the current curriculum, I have to agree that with the state doing such a major review of curricula, and with the poor performance of many, it seems a touch premature. i believe that once the state decides on it’s “recommended” list, districts have to use them or will not get state money for books. What a dang shame it would be if Bellevue did their selection, purchased one year’s worth of books then found out that the state wouldn’t help purchase the succeeding years..
So, for your reading pleasure….
“April 16, 2009
Dear Dr. Cudeiro, BSD School Board Members, Karen Clark, Jan Zuber, Vicky Murray, Eva Collins, Sharon Howard, Steve Blatt, and Linda Thornberry:
It has come to our attention that there is a review underway of BSD high school math curricula. This is good news, but it is a process that should be transparent and open to parents who wish to participate. It directly impacts our children and uses a considerable amount of our tax dollars. If it is not done right, our children will not be adequately prepared for their futures, and we will have to pay the cost of remediation. When CMP2 and Math Expressions were adopted parents were excluded from the selection process, and we want to be sure we are included this time.
A parallel process is going on at the state level with complete transparency and participation of teachers and parents. We want the process in our district to openly include these same groups. We also want to be absolutely certain that any change in BSD math curricula align to new state standards, assessment and recommended curricula.
This is a brief summary of the ongoing process at the state level:
• On January 15, 2009 OSPI released its 2008 High School Mathematics Core Comprehensive Materials Review & Recommendations Report: Initial Recommendations. This study measured alignment of submitted curricula to new state standards, and can be found at the OSPI website with this link: http://www.k12.wa.us/CurriculumInstruct/pubdocs/PublishersNotices/OSPIMathHS-IMR-Rpt1-15-09.pdf
Table 1.5.2 on page 19 shows the “Publisher Bundle Comparison” of how the curricula align to the standards. The order of ranking is as follows:
Holt
Discovering
Glencoe McGraw-Hill
Prentice-Hall Math
McDougal Littell
Core Plus Math
CPM
CORD Algebra
Cognitive Tutor Algebra
SIMMS Math
CME
Interactive Math Program
Math Connections
• SBE then hired Strategic Teaching, an independent consultant, to review the mathematical soundness of the top 3 curricula as well as Core Plus. Strategic Teaching’s High School Mathematics Curriculum Study was released on March 15, 2009 and can be found at: http://www.sbe.wa.gov/documents/2009-3-8WAHSCurriculumStudy.pdf
On page 3 of the Executive Summary they graph their findings. None of the evaluated curricula met criteria for being “mathematically sound.” Only Holt Algebra-Geometry series met criteria for “mathematical soundness meets minimum standard.” Discovering Algebra-Geometry series assessed at “mathematically unsound” in all areas of evaluation.
• In their meeting of March 12-13, SBE called for further evaluation of other curricula on the list OSPI compiled in their Initial Recommendations. This is an excerpt from their meeting notes, which are available at http://www.sbe.wa.gov/documents/MarchMeetingHighlights.pdf.
“The SBE consultant did not find any of the programs to be strong in terms of their definition of mathematical soundness. Therefore, the Board recommends that additional work be done, in conjunction with the SBE and OSPI, to reconcile the two different reviews of mathematical soundness and expand the review of mathematical soundness to all programs that OSPI ranked with a composite score of 0.755, which would require the review of three more programs. The Board suggests that this work be done before OSPI recommends three curricular programs. This work should involve an independent review and not be done by the consultants who did the existing work.”
The state level review process and final selection of 3 approved curricula will not be completed until summer, according to Randy Dorn’s office. Ultimately we can count on 3 curricula that align with the revised WA standards and that are also mathematically sound. This will be a remarkable improvement in all respects for our schools and our children.
Our concern is that BSD is racing ahead of the process that is occurring at the state level and will fail to reap its full benefits. We have heard that BSD is considering Discovering Algebra-Geometry and Holt Algebra-Geomoetry, and that they are close to making a final decision. Both of these curricula are among those reviewed by Strategic Teaching for SBE. Discovering Algebra-Geometry is considered “mathematically unsound.” Holt Algebra-Geometry met only minimum standard of mathematical soundness. It is very likely others of the curricula listed by OSPI will rank higher in mathematical soundness in the next review process.
Some members of the state Math Advisory Panel who have looked over all of the curricula prefer the next two titles that OPSI and SBE will be reviewing. They are the Prentice Hall and McDougal-Littell Algebra-Geometry series. You can peruse Prentice Hall at https://www.pearsonsuccessnet.com/snpapp/login/login.jsp# (User name = HSMath09, Password = 123456). The McDougal-Littell link is http://www.mcdougallittell.com/ml/math.htm?level2Code=AG&lvl=3.
Seattle School District is also reviewing curricula for their schools. Dr. Jack Lee, a UW mathematician, reviewed their top 2 choices, Discovering Algebra-Geometry and the Prentice-Hall Algebra-Geometry series. His comparison is attached. He found that Prentice-Hall is far more mathematically sound than Discovering Algebra-Geometry.
It is absolutely essential that BSD draw from the state-level process, rather than rushing to a conclusion that may fall short of what is best for our children. The state is investing enormous resources in a thorough analysis of the curricula under review. They are taking the time to get it right.
• We, as parents and stakeholders in the Bellevue School District want our children to benefit from this very thorough process.
• We do not want a final decision to be made by BSD until the process of curriculum selection has been finalized at the state level.
• As the primary stakeholders of this district we ask you to assure transparency and parental involvement, beginning immediately.
• We want BSD to open the math curriculum selection process to include parents who wish to participate.
• We want information on the process to be published on the BSD website so that the entire community has access. This is the norm in many districts as well as at the state level. It recognizes the right that we as parents have to help shape the quality of education available to our children and paid for with our tax dollars.
Dr. Cudeiro has promised to work extensively and transparently with parents. She stated her intention to create many forums for open collaboration. The parental involvement we are calling for is consistent with her promises, and will most certainly lead to significant improvements for all students in Bellevue School District.
Sincerely,
BSD Parents:”
