The third meeting of the Elementary Math Committee took place on May 10, 2018 at the LCUSD District Office – Governing Board Room. The minutes taken by district staff can be viewed here:
Minutes from 3rd Elementary Math Committee Meeting
Attendees:
Teachers (3): Lori Arbucci, Jane Chang-Hur, Christine Matthews
Administration (4): Jim Cartnal, Debra Cradduck, Karen Hurley, Wendy Sinnette
Governing Board (1): Ellen Multari
Parents (8): Alphan Altinok, Tuan Do, Sunyoung Fahimi, Joshua Gottheim, Anna Hasbun, Ajay Perumbeti, William Schulze, Jomjai Srisomburananont
Summary:
Superintendent opened the meeting by having members share the research and information that had been completed off-line since the last meeting. The research from each group formed at the second meeting is located in shared Google docs here:
Group 1 – Acceleration within the school day
Group 2 – Acceleration outside the school day
Though a substantial amount of research was collected and shared, most of it was never presented at the third meeting due to comments expressed by district staff.
William Schulze, a parent from Group 1, presented a parent-created proposal for Cohort Based Acceleration:
Click to see presentation slides.
The proposal was for math curriculum compaction in the elementary grades similar to the math curriculum compaction (at a rate of 4 to 3) in the middle + high school. Several objections were raised by district staff and the proposal did not gain much traction. One of the objections raised by staff was that accelerating in math is “developmentally inappropriate” for children. A parent responded that in the extensive research conducted by parent committee members off-line, no studies were found to support this claim, and further that studies were found supporting just the opposite — positive social/emotional benefits from acceleration and negative social/emotional harm from not allowing kids to accelerate who are ready.
Parents attempted to present the results of research on acceleration conducted offline since the second elementary math committee meeting. The research showed overwhelmingly that, “As an educational intervention, acceleration is decidedly effective for high-ability students.”¹
In response, an administrator declared that research can be found to support any position.
With the Superintendent’s longstanding stipulation in her year-long goal that all potential solutions be research-based now effectively nullified, no more research was presented.
Teachers then presented the results of an internal teacher survey that had been conducted since the second Elementary Math Committee meeting. The purpose of the survey was to ascertain how many students are ready for acceleration in math. The official minutes describes the survey presentation thusly:
“Teachers reported that there are maybe 1-2 students that are truly above grade level and are ready for above grade level content. Students are given diagnostic exams at the beginning of the school year to determine their mastery levels. Teachers have a good sense of which students have mastery throughout the year and are able to differentiate.”
The results of the survey for 5th and 6th grade are below:
| Grade 6 | |||||
| School | Total Students | Above Grade Level | Below Grade Level | ||
| # | # | % | # | % | |
| PCY | 120 | 6 | 5.0% | 15 | 12.5% |
| LCE | 116 | 2 | 1.7% | 12 | 10.3% |
| PCR | 120 | 6 | 5.0% | 14 | 11.7% |
| Total | 356 | 14 | 3.9% | 41 | 11.5% |
| Grade 5 | |||||
| School | Total Students | Above Grade Level | Below Grade Level | ||
| # | # | % | # | % | |
| PCY | 58 | 4 | 6.9% | 0 | 0.0% |
| LCE | 30 | 2 | 6.7% | 0 | 0.0% |
| PCR | 57 | 6 | 10.5% | 10 | 17.5% |
| Total | 145 | 12 | 8.3% | 10 | 6.9% |
There are several questions and issues with the survey that should be noted:
- The survey was incomplete. As can be seen from the 5th grade data, roughly half of the students are missing (i.e. SARC data from the 2016-17 school year indicate there should have been at least 115 students at PCY in 5th grade, 89 at LCE, and 94 at PCR, for a total of at least 298 5th graders.)
- The question asked of teachers in the survey was how many students are above grade level or are “far below grade level” in mathematics. The question as posed does not properly speak to the question of how many students are capable of acceleration. The question in fact asks a higher threshold than one would normally consider for grade-level acceleration in a subject. A more appropriate survey question would have been “how many of your students are capable of learning math at a pace faster than the normal pace for your classroom?”
- Even with the higher threshold question than should have been asked, it is known that the teacher’s estimates of their students abilities, at least in some cases, were way off. For example, according to the survey results, the PCR 6th grade teachers indicated only 6 students were ready for acceleration. However, the same week the survey was conducted the LCHS 7/8 middle school math placement test was administered to LCUSD 6th graders and 12 PCR 6th graders passed the 7th grade portion of the exam, and 5 passed both the 7th and 8th grade portions of the exam. The middle school placement exam is the equivalent of the end-of-year final exam for the 7th and 8th grade Common Core Advanced mathematics courses taught in the middle school. Further, another three PCR 6th graders took the middle school placement exam and scored in the 70%-79% range on the 7th grade portion of the exam, and four others had been studying 7th grade math material for at least 7 months. In total, at least 18 PCR 6th graders had been accelerating in 7th (or higher) mathematics outside of school for at least 7 months prior to the survey, and perhaps a half a dozen more took the middle school placement exam and could have been working ahead as well. Therefore, the PCR 6th grade teachers underestimated the number of students who were capable of accelerating by at least 200% using the district’s own objective measures.
- A surprisingly high number of students were reported to be performing “far below grade-level standards” in 6th grade – 11.5%. What is to become of those students? Were remediation opportunities offered to them? If not, is there a plan to help them before promoting them out of elementary school and into Pre-Algebra in the middle school?
A Board member asserted that when the majority of students demonstrate understanding of concepts, teachers move on and/or students have the option to work in Redbird/EPGY. For those unfamiliar with Redbird and EPGY, Stanford University developed the Educational Program for Gifted Youth (EPGY) and its Common-Core aligned successor – RedBird Learning – as self-paced, computer-based curriculum for gifted and other advanced students. LCUSD adopted EPGY/Redbird in the 2015-16 school year as a differentiation resource in mathematics for district 4th through 6th grade GATE and other mathematically advanced students. A parent responded that EPGY/Redbird is unevenly implemented across the district’s elementary schools (e.g. some students are never given access to EPGY/RedBird from their teacher) and since it is a self-paced differentiation resource it forces the student to learn by themselves and thus requires self-motivation from students to be effective.
A number of objections were raised to providing an acceleration pathway to elementary students in math:
- Students will worry about being labeled.
- Students will stress out about the assessment to qualify for the accelerated path or class.
- Ability grouping in math had been used in the district several years ago in the upper elementary grades with students divided into two homogeneous groups for math –– an “accelerated” group that essentially learned the same math material, just at a quicker pace and with more in-depth projects (the teachers did not teach material beyond the grade-level standards), and a “regular” group that learned the material at the regular pace. The qualifying criteria was augmented each year depending on the number of students who qualified for the “accelerated” group. Problems with the program included students that just missed the cutoff scores were upset, and some students in the “accelerated” math group excluded others in social settings.
- A teacher pointed out that more advanced students are already given differentiated resources that includes more challenging work including projects and games, but parents may just not be aware of it.
- Another teacher pointed out that they already give differentiated opportunities to different learners, but don’t broadcast to students why specific students are given specific projects. The teacher used the analogy of a gifted baseball player isn’t given a specialized PE class based on his/her baseball skills, he/she participates in general PE just like the rest of the students. At times the PE teacher may be able to give the student different activities more designed for his/her abilities, but they are expected to be part of the general education setting.²
- It is not fiscally responsible to provide specialized, accelerated math opportunities that benefit so few students. As discussed above, there exists a wide gulf in estimates of how many district elementary students are ready for acceleration. At the low end, the teacher survey found only 3.9% of district 6th graders are ready, while a parent pointed out that 65% of LCUSD elementary students are exceeding grade level standards in math according to the most recent CAASPP testing results. The parents who supported it also pointed out that one of the reasons that acceleration was recommended as the major solution is precisely because it does not cost anything extra compared to other solutions.
After district staff and administration presented a multitude of reasons not to support acceleration in any form and effectively declared no research was reliable, Superintendent Sinnette presented a compromise proposal — an opt-in math class that would follow the elementary Spanish program model. In such a form, the curriculum could be designed in grades 4-6 with a mandatory summer school class after 6th grade to prepare students for 8th grade math in 7th grade. Students would have to test into it, forgo PE, Spanish and/or GATE, with an itinerant teacher. Students would also remain in their grade-level math class. A parent felt that while the idea was incremental progress, it may not meet the needs of students on a daily basis.
In spite of the multitude of staff objections to acceleration, some teachers expressed some positive support. Two teachers said they were open to the possibility of acceleration, and in general would like to spend more attention on their advanced students during math instruction time, but they have 28 other students that require their attention.
During a discussion on state standards, a Board member stated that the parents on the committee were not representative of LCUSD parents. The rebuke to parents on the committee was particularly ironic given district administration had chosen the parent members of the Elementary Math Committee.
The same Board member who declared parent committee members out of touch with their constituents offered to restructure the committee into a Governing Board committee next year so that all parents could participate, but still retain a membership of the committee that will regularly participate. Since it would be a Governing Board special committee it would be subject to the Brown Act – committee agendas and minutes would be posted, and the meetings would be open to the public. At these meetings the committee would come up with options with costs associated with each.
As written in the district’s official minutes of the third committee meeting:
Parents shared appreciation for the process and offered the following feedback:
- Asked for the minutes to be presented to the Board as an agendized item.
- After school math group policy that would enable parents to run private math instruction.
- Collaborative process to address the needs of all students, including those students achieving beyond their grade level.
- Information about content and strategies regarding math instruction today.
- Optimism and excitement about the future.
- Appreciation for the teachers’ work and meeting the demands of so many levels of learners.
Teachers shared appreciation for the process and offered the following feedback:
- Separation of student groups creates negative impact on how students feel about themselves and others.
- Teachers are here to represent all students, not just the top 5%.
- Math Olympiad questions could be added to classroom instruction.
- There are benefits and disadvantages of both homogeneous and heterogeneous structures.
- Realities of school life create challenges to meet all needs.
- Students already have natural groups that they gravitate toward, math groups would increase that social pressure.
- Parents know how terrific the teachers and district staff are, and believe they can do more for all learners.
District staff shared appreciation for the process and offered the following feedback:
- It’s important to address the needs of all students and together we can try to innovate. We’re open to listening to parent interests for math instruction.
- Can we create an IEP-like plan for the 5% of the advanced math students to address their needs and help with communication and foster engagement?
- Expressed appreciation for parent involvement in all areas, especially in math.
The meeting was adjourned.
1 – “Guidelines for an Academic Acceleration Policy” (2009), Institute for Research and Policy on Acceleration (IRPA), National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC), and Council of State Directors of Programs for the Gifted (CSDPG).
2– The analogy of the gifted baseball player in PE is problematic on several levels. First, in high school students on the baseball and other varsity sports teams are excused from PE entirely or are placed in special PE courses for sports team members that allows the baseball player to train in his/her sport exclusively during PE time and take an abbreviated, specially designed PE course in the off-season. Second, if the analogy was meant only to apply in elementary (and middle school when PE is a mandate), then it is true that gifted baseball and other sports team members are still required to meet their general PE requirement. However, the parents of gifted baseball and other sports members do not ask the district to provide specialized PE courses for their kids because, among other reasons, the district does not have an obligation to teach each a student at his or her level of sports expertise and capability, like it does for students in academic subjects. The LCUSD GATE Master plan states: “The district believes all students deserve an education that challenges them to meet their full potential. As such, the district is committed to differentiating the core curriculum for all students during the regular school day.” Baseball and sports are not part of the core curriculum, but mathematics is.
La Cañada Math 