Everyday Mathematics at LCUSD

Introduction

As described on the History Behind Everyday Math in LCUSD page of this site, the adoption of Everyday Mathematics by the LCUSD Governing Board in May of 2016 for its three elementary schools was anything but smooth. Regardless of how it was selected, the district began using Everyday Mathematics in August 2016 for the 2016-17 school year.

Elementary Math Adoption Oversight Committee

Background:

Given the controversy surrounding the Everyday Mathematics adoption decision in May 2016, the LCUSD school board directed district officials to create an Elementary Math Adoption Oversight Committee to oversee the implementation and asked that parents be invited on the committee. The district created the committee and solicited parents in late August 2016 to apply to be on the committee. Four parents were selected by the site principals in September 2016 and the committee convened for the first time on September 22, 2016. The membership of the committee, its meeting dates & times, and the minutes from those meetings are listed below. Note that district officials did not select any of the parents affiliated with the La Cañada Math Parents group, nor any of the 195 people who signed the petition asking the Board not to adopt Everyday Mathematics, many of whom have advanced degrees in mathematics and the sciences. Further, the district never announced the names of parents selected, though the selected parents were supposed to REPRESENT all parents to the committee.

Purpose of Committee:

Assistant Superintendent of Curriculum and Instruction Anaïs Wenn explained at the committee’s inaugural meeting on 09/22/16 that the purpose of the committee was:

“To evaluate the progress of the newly adopted Everyday Math and to involve the parents in the process. By the Governing Board’s direction, this committee was established as a response to parent concerns regarding adoption of Everyday Math for grades TK-5.”

Members of Committee:

Though the District never announced who the committee members were, the La Cañada Math Parents were able to determine its membership from publicly available documents and by asking attendees:

  • Anaïs Wenn (LCUSD Assistant Superintendent)
  • Emily Blaney (Principal, La Cañada Elementary)
  • Debra Cradduck (Principal, Paradise Canyon Elementary)
  • Karen Hurley (Principal, Palm Crest Elementary)
  • Kaitzer Puglia (LCUSD Governing Board member)
  • Linda Posod (KG teacher, La Cañada Elementary)
  • Rachel Harter (1st grade teacher, Palm Crest Elementary)
  • Sheri Burns (1st grade teacher, La Cañada Elementary)
  • Holly Russell (2nd grade teacher, Paradise Canyon Elementary)
  • Tonya Mizrahi (3rd grade teacher, Palm Crest Elementary)
  • Kim Slattery (3rd grade teacher, La Cañada Elementary)
  • Lara Berdahl (4th grade teacher, Palm Crest Elementary)
  • Katherine Patito (6th grade teacher, La Cañada Elementary)
  • Jennifer Zine (Teacher on Special Assignment, La Cañada High School)
  • Carmen Arom (Parent, Paradise Canyon Elementary)
  • Amy Kelly (Parent, La Cañada Elementary)
  • Ajay Perumbeti (Parent, Palm Crest Elementary)
  • Marilyn Yang (Parent, Paradise Canyon Elementary)

Note that not every one of the above members attended every meeting and in some cases were represented by someone else. For example, LCUSD board member Ellen Multari attended the first committee meeting in place of board member Kaitzer Puglia.

Committee Meetings:

The committee met quarterly throughout the 2016-17 school year. The district as a matter of practice never published the date and time of upcoming meetings, nor agendas,  nor were said meetings open to the community. However, minutes of the meetings were taken and the district published them shortly after the meetings on the district website. We link to the district’s website for the minutes:

  • September 22, 2016 (Agenda, Minutes)
  • December 7, 2017 (Agenda, Minutes)
  • February 15, 2017 (Agenda, Minutes)
  • April 27, 2017 (Agenda, Minutes)

At its final meeting on April 27th, the committee was dissolved:

“In conclusion, it was summarized that although this was the final meeting for this committee, the conversations on Everyday Math will be ongoing and parents can continue to communicate their concerns, if they have any, to their children’s teachers. These concerns will be discussed and addressed at IPG meetings, elementary principal meetings and leadership team meetings.”

Issues & Concerns:

As occurs in many districts that adopt Everyday Mathematics (click here for an extensive list), a number of concerns and issues were brought up by parents and teachers during its first year of implementation. The following issues were raised during the Elementary Math Adoption Oversight Committee meetings or during the single outreach event for parents hosted by the district during the 2016-17 school year:

  • EM’s Spiral approach is confusing and leaves gaps if students are absent – This was one of the most oft-heard complaints from parents and also brought up by teachers throughout the meeting minutes. For example:

“Some teachers were not comfortable with the spiral approach yet because it is very new to them. They need more time to get used to it and develop confidence in the approach.” [09/22/16]

and since topics are visited only briefly it presented challenges to students who were absent:

“One of the upper grade teachers expressed concerns with students who were absent often and missed the direct instruction provided by the teachers. Catching them up is challenging.” [12/07/16]

and from parents…

“Everyday Math seems to keep jumping around. There was a concern about not spending the time to really get into a concept.” [12/06/16]

and…

“Math program seems to move fast and if parents are not able to help the child right away with new concept they don’t have a chance before the program moves on to something else. They understand it is spiraling program but when end of the chapter test is given the kids are not scoring as well because they can’t grasp the newer concepts.” [12/06/16]

and…

“One of the parent representatives thought it would be a great idea to create a parent guide for each grade level to let parents know which concepts would be taught when, and to describe the strategies teachers use in class so that they could use the same strategies at home.” [09/22/16]

  • Deeper conceptual understanding vs ‘rote memorization’ – The minutes several times presented the assertion that EM teaches conceptual understanding without the need for ‘rote memorization’:

“One of the principals shared feedback from parents which indicated that parents were still having difficulty with the new instructional approach to math. There was a lengthy discussion on the shifts of teaching and learning with Common Core State Standards, which require more hands-on and conceptual learning vs. rote memorization and practice problems on worksheets. Not seeing worksheets does not mean students are not learning math.” [09/22/16]

…and again at the 04/27/16 meeting:

“Memorizing algorithms may teach rote learning (50+ problems) but doesn’t always ensure conceptual understanding of concepts.” [04/27/17]

The disparaging characterization of “worksheets” was repeated frequently by District staff:

“Some parents think there is lack of differentiation with Everyday Math because they don’t see any work with more difficult problems. Teachers shared that because differentiation is not done through worksheets that are sent home, parents think there is no differentiation.” [04/27/17]

This characterization that EM achieves conceptual learning versus rote memorization in traditional mathematics curricula is a false comparison and, unfortunately, was repeated by District staff throughout the committee meetings. For more on this false trade-off, read “Basic Skills Versus Conceptual Understanding: A Bogus Dichotomy in Mathematics Education” by Hung-Hsi Wu, professor of mathematics at the University of California at Berkeley.

  • EM teaches multiple non-standard algorithms for arithmetic, which are confusing to students & parents, and necessarily sacrifices proficiency with any one algorithm  – As expressed by a parent, “There are too many ways to solve problems, and that is confusing.” [12/07/16] This was a major concern expressed by multiple parents at the District Elementary Math Night on January 11, 2017 held at PCY. The McGraw-Hill representative who spoke at that evening in defense of EM said that the philosophy of EM was to present students with multiple algorithms for a standard arithmetic operation, but ultimately let the student choose which algorithm to use on tests. This is not consistent with some of the homework and tests given in classrooms as parents report students are graded down for using an algorithm other than the one being taught.

District staff, particularly Assistant Superintendent Wenn frequently asserted and implied that parents are incapable or reluctant to understand the strategies (and algorithms) used in EM:

“Ms. Wenn mentioned that some of the parent concerns had to do with them not understanding the academic language/vocabulary or strategies used by Everyday Math and not being able to help their children at home. To support parents at home, teachers will create short videos that model the academic language and strategies used in each grade level and post them online for easy access.

…

The concerns continue to reflect lack of parent understanding of the program and its resources. however, not many parents attend the parent nights. All resources are posted online but some parents have still not used this resource. The challenge is to come up with other ways to provide this critical information when parents don’t attend the parent nights or access the online resources.

…

Ms. Wenn asked the parents on the committee to share their thoughts and feedback . It is clear from some parents’ feedback that they still do not understand Everyday Math, its goal and philosophy.” [04/27/17]

Parent confusion with EM‘s methods and approaches was consistently raised throughout the year, yet consistently dismissed by district staff as reluctance or failure of understanding on the part of parents:

“One of the parents shared that the feedback she collected showed that parents are frustrated with the new teaching methods. They feel a disconnect. Kids are getting the methods, parents do not.” [04/27/17]

  • ‘Home Links’ does not provide enough practice for students – This complaint was repeated throughout the committee meeting minutes. For example:

“La Canada Elementary teachers reported that the ‘Home Links’ did not provide enough practice to students so they asked the District for the Skills Link workbooks. They also asked if the District could provide the answer key for the Skills Link.”[09/22/16]

  • Insufficient development of basic (arithmetic) skills – This complaint was mentioned throughout the committee minutes, and is one of the top two complaints from parents. For example:

“(La Canada Elementary teachers) asked if basic computational skills were taught frequently to prepare students for upper grade math.” [09/22/16]

And again in the December committee meeting from a parent:

“The memorization of facts is not as strong. While the kids seem to understand the process behind the answer, they are not able to quickly answer the simple addition / subtraction / multiplication facts which they will need to do later with higher math.” [12/06/17]

  • EM does not teach standards to mastery – This is a by-product of other issues identified such as not enough practice provided and insufficient development of computational skills. The problem as reported by teachers in a committee meeting was described thusly:

“Some teachers found it challenging to assign grades/marks in the report cards this trimester due to the fact that not all standards were covered to mastery level with the spiraling approach. For example, teachers taught a concept, but didn’t think students were exposed to it enough to reach mastery, therefore issuing a grade for that standard was difficult. Ms. Wenn will make sure that the report cards are discussed at the Parent EDM Education Night. There was a question about giving N/As vs. revising the current report card to better reflect the standards covered each trimester. Ms. Wenn discussed both options and mentioned that the District is open to revising the report card (math section only) if teachers will be willing to join a committee to do this work.” [12/07/16]

Notwithstanding the fact that the issue of report cards was not discussed at the District Elementary Math Night on January 11th, 2017 as promised, the response of the Assistant Superintendent was extremely problematic depending on what remedial action she had in mind. What the above implied was that the curriculum does not teach a required standard to mastery, but was listed on the report card so the teacher felt obliged to enter a mark. Rather than have the teacher complete the report card honestly with an “N/A” or “insufficient,” Ms. Wenn suggested removing the standard from the report card.

The ambiguity about what the Assistant Superintendent suggested at the 12/07/16 meeting was clarified in the minutes from the 02/15/17 meeting. The question from the 12/07/16 meeting was apparently on the agenda for the 02/15/17 meeting for teachers to discuss:

“The second item was about report cards. The question was ‘Should the report card be revised to reflect the specific standards being taught to mastery at the end of each trimester, or should it be left as is, whereby teachers mark NA when a particular concept had not yet been taught to mastery?’

A teacher from PCR mentioned that it would be too many NAs for the first trimester and they would not feel comfortable with that. She asked if they could put a checkmark for ‘area of focus’ in boxes, which list the concepts and give one overall grade for math. This would require revising the report card. Someone else suggested using a slash instead, which shows that it is in progress but not necessarily mastered.

A teacher from LCE asked if it would be acceptable to leave boxes blank for concepts that have not been taught to mastery instead of an N/A? Administration stated that leaving boxes blank could be misinterpreted by parents and cause confusion. Another suggestion was to shade out standards for each of the trimesters that have not been taught to mastery so teachers would only mark those that have been taught. The committee acknowledged that there needs to be consistency of practice district-wide. Astrid Longo, the representative from EDM offered the help of their consultant to identify standards that are taught to mastery for each trimester so that it can be reflected on the report card. Mrs.  Wenn welcomed this offer and mentioned that once it is decided at IPG that the report card would be revised, a group of teachers and administrators will utilize the guidance of the consultant to revise it.”

Thus it appeared that teachers and administration reached consensus on revising the report cards because the standards were not taught to mastery under the new curriculum. The offer from the Everyday Mathematics representative begged the question why was a consultant’s help needed to identify which standards are taught to mastery each trimester? Shouldn’t that be self-evident to teachers? If not, how would they be able to ascertain if any given standard is being mastered?

Eventually at the 04/27/17 meeting, a solution was found:

“With regard to the report cards, it was decided at the elementary Instructional Programming Group (IPG) meeting to add ‘In Progress’ option for any standard that has been started, but not yet taught to mastery.” [04/27/17]

In short, there was never any acknowledgement that the curriculum might be at fault for failing to provide enough practice or instruction to students to attain mastery of grade-level standards. To the district’s credit, instead of removing the standard from the report card, they finally resolved to create a new grade mark of “In Progress” for those standards. This ignores the more troubling underlying issue that the standard was not being taught to master.

  • Pacing: it is difficult to complete lessons in allotted time and too many concepts are taught too quickly – Reported by teachers at all three sites. [09/22/16] Teachers asked for the EM trainer to discuss pacing of lessons. [12/07/16] And again in the December meeting:

“Kindergarten teachers find it difficult to fit the program into a half day Kindergarten. They continue to supplement with other resources to meet the needs of their students…

Pacing is still challenging for teachers.” [12/07/16]

And again the issue was raised in the December meeting:

“A second grade teacher reported being overwhelmed with the number of concepts covered in one unit. The Explore lessons (purple pages in primary Teacher Editions) can be taught after the rest.” [12/07/16]

  • Curriculum does not provide sufficient differentiation for advanced learners – From a parent comment:

“Some parents are concerned that their students aren’t getting challenged enough. A suggestion was made to contact the teacher and let them know that the student needs to be challenged.” [12/07/16]

This complaint was expressed verbally by several parents at the District Elementary Math Night on January 11th, 2017 at PCY. Other parents said the games were too easy, “Students have to waste time on easy games until it gets challenging.” [12/07/16]

The parent complaint of lack of differentiation was brought up again at the 04/27/17 meeting:

“Ms. Wenn asked for teacher feedback on differentiation. Do teachers feel that the publisher provides enough resources for differentiation? Some parents think there is lack of differentiation with Everyday Math because they don’t see any work with more difficult problems. Teachers shared that because differentiation is not done through worksheets that are sent home, parents think there is no differentiation. The difficulty of questions being asked or the math games played varies based on students’ ability levels. The math talk is also varied in centers based on students’ ability levels. Small group instruction or pair work is differentiated as well but these are not things they can send home so parents can see that there is differentiation going on. However, if parents express concerns, teachers will have the opportunity to explain the different ways they differentiate which will eliminate these concerns. It was also mentioned that parents have different definitions of ‘challenge.’ Memorizing algorithms may teach rote learning (50+ problems) but doesn’t always ensure conceptual understanding of concepts. Again it was restated that if there are specific concerns regarding the program parents should bring them to the teachers so that they can address them. Bringing concerns to the committee will not help parents with their specific concern.” [04/27/17]

  • Manipulatives require prior planning and time to prepare to use effective, and are unwieldy – “Some (teachers) reported that students were asked to cut out materials in the manipulatives (sic) kit, which took a long time.” [09/22/16] And in the December meeting, “Teachers need suggestions on ways to organize the manipulatives.” [12/07/16]
  • Deploying six grades simultaneously leaves gaps in student knowledge – As described in the minutes:

“La Canada Elementary upper grade teachers had concerns regarding the gaps some students would bring with them since they had not had the Everyday Math program from early elementary years. They asked if the same models were used in lower grades so that the students would be proficient in their use as they progressed to upper grades.” [09/22/16]

Gaps in knowledge and solving methods is commonplace when districts make a switch to a new curriculum that is markedly different than what was used previously. Typically districts do not deploy a curriculum this different all at once as LCUSD is doing. More typical is a phased rollout as San Marino USD is doing with Everyday Mathematics. In a phased rollout, the curriculum is introduced progressively, starting for example with Kindergarten or KG & 1st, and then adding a grade year or two each school year. This way kids used to the old curriculum are phased out and the curriculum in upper grades is only introduced later to kids who have had the curriculum for several years.

  • Online component of EM is confusing – This was reported by both parents and teachers in multiple places. For example:

“Teachers reported that they had not started using the online component of Everyday Math because they were not comfortable with it yet. They asked for training in the usage of the online component.” [09/22/16]

The issue was raised again at the next committee meeting:

“The e-tool kit on ConnectEd has been helpful, but there is still a need to sort through a lot of materials. More training on ConnectEd would be helpful. There has been success with entering student data, but teachers need more support on how to access that data and how to best utilize it. Additionally, more training is needed on how to print the online alternate assessments from ConnectEd. These assessments, which are meant to be given onine, don’t print well.” [12/07/16]

And again by parents at the December meeting:

“Different parents are going to different websites to try to help their students. Posting available resources and communicating it to parents will address this concern.” [12/07/16]

  • Assessments have some problems – A myriad of problems were described here, though some are not unique to EM:
    • “The main assessment is adequate and the challenge questions and performance tasks are good for students with advanced math skills, but difficult for struggling students.” [12/07/16]
    • EM assessments not integrated with Illuminate (i.e. the online student grade information system.) A number of questions centered around this issue:

“How will these assessments work as common assessments next year? How will they work with Illuminate? Currently, EM assessments are not in Illuminate. Will the tests be created and each question linked to a standard? Or will they be created as summaries of assessments and final scores entered? How will this look for parents since Illuminate generates parent letters? Next year can the common assessments be graded and sent home since parents will not get a breakdown in a parent letter?” [12/07/16]

  • “There is a need to create practice tests or study guides for upper grades.” [12/07/16]
  • Younger students have difficulty writing explanations – “Younger students have a hard time writing explanations.” [12/07/16] To be fair to EM, this is a common problem with all Common Core aligned curricula and is more an artifact of the CCSS-M standards than EM.
  • Challenge problem in 2nd & 3rd grade assessments were difficult – “2nd and 3rd grade teachers from PCY reported that the ‘challenge problem’ in the assessments were difficult for students, and teachers were not sure if they should include it in the student’s grade or not.” [09/22/16]
  • Lack of a textbook – “One parent asked if they could have a textbook.” [12/06/17] This complaint was expressed verbally at the District Elementary Math Night on January 11, 2017 as well. Parents complained that without a textbook there was no way to see what was going to be taught in the future, and made it more difficult to go back and re-teach concepts that required remediation. The answer is there is no textbook in EM. There is a Student Math Journal, which most students do not take home, Home Links which contains the nightly homework assignments but no table of contents or explanation of topics, and the Student Reference Book, which is also not taken home and is organized alphabetically, not in a logical, hierarchical sequence like a regular textbook. The McGraw-Hill representative responded that parents could figure out what was going to be taught by reading the home letters sent to parents by teachers before each new topic. Parents responded that they had never seen the home letters. The MH rep said they could all be accessed online.

Parent demand for a textbook or reference book at home was frequently raised:

“Many parents want the student reference book at home. They do not want to access it online even though they understand that that’s what the program offers. A suggestion was made to give parents access to the link to order the student reference book for home if they do not want to use the online version. They can be given this information at BTSN (back-to-school night) so that they will have the option to purchase it if they wish. They may get it for free through the website or purchase on their own.” [04/27/17]

The district’s response is telling. Parents were given the suggestion to PURCHASE the student reference book for home us — a precedent previously unheard of  in this district.

Strengths & Benefits:

The following positive feedback was reported during the Elementary Math Adoption Oversight Committee meetings:

  • Student Engagement – “All elementary sites reported positive feedback on student engagement…” [09/22/16] “Students enjoy the program.” [12/07/16]
  • Students getting better at explaining answers – “Students are getting more comfortable explaining their thinking in writing. [12/07/16]
  • Games – “Games are a successful hands-on tool for teaching concepts and are a favorite among students. They have taught the students to problem solve in a variety of ways. A member noted that ‘a mistake in a game is easier to correct and less intimidating than erasing on a worksheet.” [09/22/16] And from parents:

“Games and activities are fun and engaging. The students are coming home talking about counting, games, etc.” [12/07/16]

  • Assessments are open-ended and rigorous – “Teachers appreciate the fact that the tests are open-ended and rigorous.” [12/07/16]
  • Improved understanding of number sense – “One of the teachers reported that her students were better prepared at this point in the year in number sense because of the frequency of exposure to the concept, and teachers feel confident for the future of the program when there is not as much needed to fill gaps.” [12/07/16]
  • Spiral review provides better understanding – “A fourth grade teacher shared that the spiral review has really helped students with double-digit multiplication because the students have a strong foundation in base ten and place value.” [12/07/16]

Parent and Teacher Surveys:

Given the mountain of parent concerns and feedback presented throughout the first year of implementation at the Elementary Math Oversight Committee meetings and by parents individually communicated to teachers across the district, parents recommended from the first committee meeting that the district conduct a survey of parents at the end of the year to more accurately estimate parent sentiment. In addition, parents also suggested that the district conduct an anonymous survey of its teachers given than many teachers at all three schools privately expressed to parents their confusion and/or dislike for EM, but declined to express these sentiments on the record or to administration for fear of retaliation or fellow teacher disapproval. The committee was initially supportive of the parent survey suggestion:

“One of the parent representatives suggested surveying the parents to get their feedback on the new curriculum. The committee agreed that later in the year when teachers and parents have had access to all resources, a survey would be helpful. The possibility of a year-end parent survey was discussed as well.” [09/22/16]

The survey idea gained momentum by the third committee meeting:

“In addressing the concerns brought up by parents, Mrs. Wenn asked if teachers felt that an anonymous survey was needed to find out what teachers thought about EDM. She asked them to think of their colleagues and conversations they have had in order to respond to this question. She asked the teachers to talk to colleagues and let her know. Teachers have not had issues in the past communicating their concerns to each other or to site or district administration, however, if they think this would be helpful, it will be implemented.

Mrs. Wenn agreed that a parent survey would be helpful but shared that due to many recent surveys parent participation may not be strong. Surveys coming from the teachers may be taken more seriously and yield higher participation rates. Mrs. Wenn asked the teachers to get feedback from colleagues on the idea of an anonymous parent survey regarding EDM. With teachers’ feedback, a survey may be sent home to parents.” [02/15/17]

However, by the final meeting of the committee in April 2017, the survey idea was dismissed as a “waste of time” for teachers and unnecessary and potentially misleading for parents:

“Ms. Wenn reminded the committee that the decision to implement anonymous teacher and parent surveys regarding Everyday Math will be made today as a committee. She asked each member to provide input gathered from their representative groups. Most teachers’ and principals’ responses indicated no need for an anonymous survey for teachers or parents. A few teachers shared that their grade level colleagues did not mind a survey and two parents on the committee thought parents would like a survey.

Some of the points made by members reflected a collective agreement that teachers selected this program and are working diligently to implement it. To survey them about it is unnecessary and is a waste of their time. Other teachers reiterated that teachers in LCUSD feel comfortable communicating their ideas and opinions and do not need an anonymous survey to do so. With regard to a parent survey, members questioned the purpose of the survey. The main point was that they had heard the concerns presented by parent committee members and have been addressing them throughout the year. The adoption decision has been made and all parties need to focus on making it successful for our students. Another survey to ask about it will not be beneficial and may be misleading. Specific concerns should be brought to teachers’ attention to be effectively resolved.” [04/27/17]

Later in the same April committee meeting, the issue was raised again:

“One of the parents mentioned the parent survey again. He shared that all parents must be given the opportunity to give input and that the data would be useful to compare from year to year. Ms. Wenn reported that parents were given this opportunity very recently through the LCAP survey. Goal #3 had a specific action on elementary math adoption and the survey was anonymous. 308 parents responded. 9 had some type of negative comment about the math adoption (3%). 78% of respondents were satisfied with the level of progress made on goal 3. This survey will be given again next year and staff can compare the results with this year’s results if needed.” [04/27/17]

There are several misstatements, untruths and factually unsound assertions made in this paragraph and the paragraph that followed that warrant attention:

  • Assistant Superintendent Wenn’s defense of not conducting a survey begins by asserting that parents had been given the opportunity to provide input on EM in the LCAP survey. As background, LCAP stands for Local Control Accountability Plan. It is defined by law in the education code of the state of California. The LCAP, according to the California Department of Education “is an important component of the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF.) Under the LCFF all LEAs are required to prepare an LCAP, which describes how they intend to meet annual goals for all pupils, with specific activities to address state and local priorities identified pursuant to EC Section 52060(d).” [Source: http://www.cde.ca.gov/fg/aa/lc/lcfffaq.asp#LCAP ] As described by the California PTA:

“The LCAPs must focus on eight areas identified as state priorities. The plans will also demonstrate how the district’s budget will help achieve the goals, and assess each year how well the strategies in the plan were able to improve outcomes.”

Towards meeting its legal LCAP obligations, the district conducted a survey of parents in January and February of 2017. Parents were asked “For each of the 7 Local Priorities listed below, please provide feedback in two areas, namely your assessment of the District’s progress with the goal area and your opinion regarding its level of importance as a District priority. Please note that the ‘focus areas’ listed below do not provide an exhaustive list of actions and services related to each local priority.” Goal #3, which Mrs. Wenn indicates was parents’ sole opportunity to provide anonymous feedback on elementary mathematics instruction, is shown below:

LCAP_goal_number_3

Note that “K-6 math adoption” is in small print below the larger goal of Provide a high quality instructional program to all students. It is among nine focus areas that include such wide ranging topics as professional development (i.e. “teacher training”), NGSS science standards, and expanding the 1:1 computer program for students. The two survey questions below the goal were asked of all seven goals, therefore implying that parents had to prioritize among the goals. There is no way to distinguish between the nine focus areas within a goal given the design of the questions. What parent would not want high quality instruction for all students?

How this LCAP survey question could be construed to be parents only secure method of providing input on elementary math is mind boggling. Yet Mrs. Wenn makes exactly that assertion. She then commits an attribution error by claiming that only 3% of parents had anything negative to say about the K-6 math adoption. The survey was sent out to all district parents in grades TK through 12, the survey was anonymous, and there was no filtering question to establish which respondents had kids in which grades. So the 308 respondents included parents in TK and grades 7 through 12. Further, surveys typically have a small response rate to open “comments” questions compared to the multiple choice or checkbox questions that precede it. Taken together these errors render the 3% number meaningless.

  • Wenn further justified the lack of need to survey parents in the 04/27/17 meeting by asserting only 2% of district parents had concerns about EM:

“When parent representatives contacted parents at their sites for input to be shared at this meeting, 15 responded from PCR (3.5% of parents) and 12 from LCE (3%). From all three elementary sites 2% of the parents had concerns regarding Everyday Math. Teachers and administrators would like to have no concerns from parents and take concerns brought up by the 2% of the parents very seriously however we need to focus our energy and efforts to make this program successful instead of continuing to complain about the program.” [04/27/17]

The process used to arrive at the 2% number is even more problematic. Firstly, parent representatives on the committee did not survey parents at their sites. The PCY parent representative did not attend the 04/27/17 committee meeting and did not submit written comments in her absence. The school sites never announced the identity of parent representatives to their parent communities. It was left to the initiative of the individual parent representatives to collect feedback from their school sites, if at all. Many parents contacted at all three schools not only had no idea who their parent representatives were, but they also did not know of the committee’s existence.

The 15 PCR and 12 LCE comments were anecdotally gathered — those parents collected feedback in an ad hoc manner — either sent to them by parents of their own initiative, or in response to email sent through the site PTAs. Keep in mind that dozens if not hundreds of comments presented from parents in previous committee meetings, at the District Elementary Math Night on January 11th, 2017, or from individual parents communicating with their teachers were not counted in Mrs. Wenn’s calculation. Two statistical errors were then committed by Mrs. Wenn. First, survey response rates should be calculated by dividing the number of measured responses by the number of responses submitted, not by the total population. Second, she counted only LCE and PCR negative comments at the committee meeting, but divided by the sum of LCE, PCR and PCY parent populations.

Thus the 2% and 3% estimates of parent concern with the K-6 elementary math adoption are so problematic as to be completely unreliable. The truth is no one knew exactly how many parents had concerns or negative feelings about Everyday Mathematics. The most reliable and expeditious way to better estimate parent satisfaction and concern is through a survey.

Given the district refused to conduct the survey, La Canada Math Parents conducted its own survey of parents in late May of 2017. The survey results are presented on the the following page:

LCMP Elementary Math Parent Survey

 

District Resources for Parents:

The district does not maintain a web page for its math program nor its math department at any of its schools as is common practice at other high achieving schools. It does however, publish sporadic information relating to the Everyday Mathematics implementation on its Curriculum and Instruction web page here:

http://www.lcusd.net/apps/pages/index.jsp?uREC_ID=365398&type=d&pREC_ID=813952

In addition, the district hosted a District Elementary Math Night for all elementary parents at Paradise Canyon Elementary School on January 11th, 2017. At that meeting, a representative from Everyday Mathematics‘ publisher McGraw-Hill gave a presentation about the curriculum and answered parent questions, of which there were many. The slides from her presentation are archived here:

https://d3jc3ahdjad7x7.cloudfront.net/RSV5lwse0DN4XqvCI1jh33VU7nuJcsmxI1Qc1yXqKkmbH34L.pdf

Lastly, members of the La Cañada Math Parents have published their own resources to try to help confused parents with Everyday Mathematics at home. For example, an LCMP member together with a parent representative on the Elementary Math Adoption Oversight Committee put together the following web page on the Palm Crest Elementary PTA website for parents:

http://palmcrestpta.org/Page/Home/em

The above contains links to Internet websites to help parents navigate the tangle of EM online resources.