by Joshua Gottheim, Tuan Do and Jomjai Srisomburananont, parent members of the Elementary Math Committee
On September 26, 2017 the LCUSD Governing Board unanimously ratified and approved the following Superintendent’s Goal for 2017-18 entitled “On-Going Best Practices in Math Instruction and Delivery”:
“Lead the action research to assess best practices in delivering intervention, differentiation, and acceleration in math instruction in elementary grades, with an emphasis on upper grades. Review options to provide teachers with maximum support to ensure that differentiated math instruction is provided to all rates and types of learners. Work closely with elementary Principals, Asst. Superintendent of Educational Services, Executive Director of Pupil and Personnel Programs and Services, and 5th and 6th grade teachers to complete the action research and create an implementation plan. Ensure that outcomes are tied to research based best practices in teaching and learning. Continue to collect and respond to stakeholder feedback regarding math instruction and curriculum, TK-12.” (Emphasis added.)
After convening two well-attended Parent Forum meetings in January and February of this year to discuss best practices in elementary math instruction, the Superintendent initiated a smaller group Elementary Math Committee consisting of nine parent representatives, two governing board members, two principals, three District administrators, and six teachers. The Committee met a total of three times, twice in April and once in May.
The first Committee meeting on April 12th allowed for a broad discussion to explore concerns and opportunities, brainstorm potential action items, and set the stage for more focused discussions to come.
At the second meeting held April 26th, the focus was on opportunities for acceleration per the unanimous request of the parent representatives on the Committee. Parent representatives explained that although the Superintendent’s Goal also references intervention and differentiation, parents believe that acceleration in the elementary grades has received the least attention from the District, and therefore deserved special focus by the Committee. Differentiation and intervention were also worthy issues that could hopefully be discussed in a future forum.
After some general discussion, the Committee broke into two working groups for the remainder of the second meeting. One group focused on in-class acceleration, and the other group focused on after-schoolopportunities. Because of the limited meeting time, each working group decided to continue the work of the Committee after the meeting by submitting follow-up research and written proposals to a shared collaboration document.
The shared documents produced by members of the Committee contain a wealth of citations to research, surveys of practices at other districts, and specific implementing proposals.
At the third and final Committee meeting on May 10th, the members walked through the collaboration documents and discussed specific implementing proposals. Key proposals and discussion points included:
- A specific proposal was put forward by several of the parents to pilot a limited return to homogeneous math groupings in grades 4-6. On a purely opt-in basis with parent consent, a student could place into an accelerated math class at each grade level at each school site. The accelerated class would proceed through the District’s math curriculum at a moderately-accelerated pace (curriculum compaction) appropriate for the class as a whole. Individual students who were determined to be ready for a higher degree of acceleration could utilize online and after-school resources.
- The goal of the pilot program would be to provide a curricular pathway to acceleration and prepare students for the middle-school math placement exam given at the end of sixth grade.
- The pilot program was designed to provide meaningful acceleration while at the same time addressing several constraints identified by administrator members of the Committee:
- Cost. The proposal involves no added teachers or classrooms. One existing math class at each site for each grade level would be designated as the accelerated class.
- Stigma. Because it is optional to try to test into the accelerated class and the class will serve a third or less of the students at each grade level, the proposal will avoid the negative effects reported in the research literature where a minority of students are placed into a “low-achievement” track. The regular classrooms serving the majority of students at each site will remain heterogeneous with a variety of higher- and lower-attainment students.
- Fairness and Equality of Access. One of the school principals on the Committee pointed out that when a similar program was tried at her school prior to 2014, several complaints were made by parents of kids who couldn’t fit or didn’t qualify for the accelerated classroom. Another Committee member (parent) pointed out that the outcry by parents of kids left out of the program only underscores even more the value and desirability of the opportunity. If the criteria and admissions process for the accelerated classroom is fairly and consistently applied, there should be few complaints – as is the case with the successful honors, advanced and AP tracks at the LCHS middle school and high school.
- Qualified Teachers. An administrator raised the question of whether there were sufficient certified and credentialed teachers at each school site available to teach the accelerated classes. An inventory of teachers qualified to teach 5th, 6th and 7th grade material would need to be made. If any of the school sites is deficient, this can be addressed through teacher re-assignment, ongoing professional development of existing teachers, and natural turnover and hiring.
- Alternative program idea. Superintendent Sinnette offered an alternative program for discussion. Patterned after the elementary foreign language program, the concept involves a combination of in-school pullouts, after-school and summer sessions to achieve a one-year acceleration over several years. There was less enthusiasm for this idea from some of the Committee parents, however, because of the additional cost to the District and time commitment after school and during the summer.
Conclusion. Overall, the Committee provided a productive forum for discussing goals, constraints and implementing solutions focused primarily on opportunities for acceleration. Parent representatives on the Committee were nearly unanimous in seeking meaningful opportunities for acceleration, while teachers and administrators (other than the Superintendent, who formulated the initial Goal and put forward an acceleration concept) generally questioned the need for acceleration, or raised objections. Consequently, it will fall to the Governing Board to determine whether this Superintendent’s goal is capable of being successfully fulfilled in a manner that will benefit our elementary students, or if it should be abandoned.