Second Elementary Math Committee Meeting – April 26, 2018

The second meeting of the Elementary Math Committee took place on Apr. 26, 2018 at the LCUSD District Office – Governing Board Room. The minutes taken by district staff can be viewed here:

Minutes from 2nd Elementary Math Committee Meeting

Note: The individual who took the official district minutes made errors in noting who attended the meeting. It appears the minute-taker merely copied and pasted the attendance list from the first meeting.

Attendees:

Teachers (6): Lori Arbucci, Debbie Au, Jane Chang-Hur, Christine Matthews, Marie Morin, Mandy Redfern
Administration (5): James Cartnal, Debra Cradduck, Karen Hurley, Wendy Sinnette, Anais Wenn
Governing Board (2): Brent Kuszyk, Ellen Multari
Parents (8): Alphan Altinok, Stacey Boland, Tuan Do, Sunyoung Fahimi, Joshua Gottheim, Anna Hasbun, Ajay Perumbeti, William Schulze

Agenda:

Elem_Math_Committee-Agenda.2018.04.26.THM
(click to enlarge)

Summary:

A summary of the meeting follows:

  • Welcome by Superintendent Sinnette.
  • Sinnette said the structure for the meeting would follow suggestions submitted via email to her by the parents on the committee. The agenda presented to committee members is shown above. The day prior to the meeting, the parent members of the committee had sent a joint letter to Superintendent Sinnette asking that the committee focus on two topics: acceleration within the school day, and examining acceleration Outside the School Day, and programs to help/support struggling and at-grade-level students. Other topics such as parent-teacher communication strategies, parent educational opportunities in math, after-school program offerings, supplemental resource materials by grade level, intervention opportunities could be reviewed next year or by the site/district.
  • Sinnette explained that it fell to her to cost the options and figure out the timeframe for implementation. Suggestions from the committee will be subject to realistic constraints, like limited resources.
  • The committee discussed the meeting format and agreed that working in smaller groups would be more productive. Before splitting into smaller groups, several topics were covered:
    • Parents expressed continued interest in developing formal acceleration opportunities for students at the elementary level.
    • Math Olympiad received positive comments, but acceleration is difficult with the large class size. There is also a wide range of abilities among Math Olympiad students – some are 1-3 grade levels ahead while some are ready for high school math.
    • A parent noted that improving math opportunities could lead to more female students continuing with higher level math and STEM.
    • A parent explained why parents are interested in acceleration – 65% of LCUSD students are performing at or above grade level standards according to California Annual Assessment of Student Progress and Planning (CAASPP) data and are ready for more challenging material. He explained that some parents feel that their children are not challenged. The Assistant Superintendent for Student Services responded that the 65% number is misleading. She stated that you can’t measure achievement just by CAASPP scores. Just because CAASPP says they’re above grade level doesn’t mean they are ready to skip. She stated, “we can see when a kid is above grade level; we don’t need parents to tell us that.” The parent who provided the explanation objected to the Assistant Superintendent’s characterization of the 65% number as misleading.
    • A teacher responded and said there are challenges in supporting students who struggle with math, and that they are just as important as those who perform above grade level.
    • A different parent stated that the lower 35% of the students are just as important as the upper 65%. But parents are concerned that their kids are bored. A teacher had mentioned that there is a risk of psychological damage from acceleration, but there are no data to suggest that there is psychological damage; instead, data suggest the psychological effect is neutral or positive.  The parent also clarified that when parents speak of acceleration, they don’t necessarily mean Math Academy pace. Also, if we care about equity, we should keep in mind that families with more resources (or more experience with math) can accelerate out of school.  But families with fewer resources can’t; by accelerating in school, we can even out that gap.  We can help the low socio-economic end reach their capability.
    • Another parent added that the district’s math program should meet everyone’s needs. Acceleration seems to keep coming up and should be considered, and teaching ability-level based classes could help all students.
    • Several teachers then countered that very few students need or are ready for acceleration. The estimates varied, from a low of 1 out of 60 (1.7%) to a high of 6 out of 60 (10%), oddly from a teacher for the same grade at the same school. The teacher who gave the estimate of 10% also admitted that a “huge group” of students needed enrichment or differentiation at grade level. A teacher from the same grade level at a different school estimated 1 out of 60 “could survive in an advanced grade”, while a teacher for a lower grade at a third school estimated that maybe one or two students could accelerate.¹
    • Another teacher cited a study (Burris, Hueubert and Levin, 2006) that showed that there weren’t any significant gains for high achieving students when in classes with like abilities, but there were statistically significant gains for low achieving students. She said the study also showed that if you label low achievers early on, those students in the “low achieving” group initially experienced a negative effect.²
    • A teacher shared that she sees her primary job is to build up character and empathy in all students. She said she believed teaching character is more important than teaching the material. Further, she believes that students have access to any pathway appropriate to their level in grades 7-12.
    • A parent responded that when kids are not engaged, their character suffers too. This is a real need. Another parent added that just as we want both computational fluency and conceptual understanding in the mathematics education of our kids, we also want both challenge and character. We don’t want an either/or choice, we want both/and. The parent thanked the teachers and said he supports teachers in their efforts to teach kids respect.
    • A parent said that there are a lot of resources devoted to the bottom 10% of students. But there are very few resources for the top 10%. There’s basically just Redbird for some high achieving students. However, Redbird is an online resource done by students alone and that’s not good enough. Students learn better in a social setting, which is missing from Redbird and ultimately becomes demotivating.
    • Another parent pointed out that LCUSD elementary schools go all the way up to 6th grade, unlike most districts where elementary is K-5. This limits acceleration opportunities for LCUSD students because acceleration opportunities for students usually start in middle school. This puts our students at a disadvantage.
  •  LCUSD Executive Director, Student and Personnel Programs and Services Jim Cartnal then spent several minutes discussing the middle and high school math program “since there is a lot of misunderstanding.”
    • With the advent of new standards, school districts were given the choice of following an integrated or traditional approach to aligning courses. The LCHS math faculty, supported by LCHS site administration, determined to follow a traditional path for the “college preparatory”, grade level pathway. The courses were organized into a progression of Algebra I, Geometry, Algebra II, and PreCalculus, following the standards outlined in California math framework. The names of the courses were changed to LC Math 1-4, with LC Math 1 covering the Algebra I standards, LC Math 2 covering the Geometry standards, LC Math 3 covering the Algebra II standards, and LC Math 4 covering the remaining advanced math standards associated with a traditional precalculus class. The courses that comprise the advanced pathway are part of a compaction of curriculum. This means that the course called LC Math 1 Advanced examines the Algebra I standards in addition to approximately one-third of the standards in Algebra II. Across each of the three courses in the advanced pathway, students engage in a compaction so that they are able to enroll in Calculus in their senior year.
    • Parents pointed out that giving the traditional courses integrated names was confusing and misleading. The previous names were descriptive, the new names are not. Superintendent Sinnette said the district had to do a better job communicating the course names to parents.
    • Cartnal explained that La Canada High School math goes through AP Calculus – either Calculus AB, or Calculus BC. That’s the capstone of the math curriculum. They’re normally taken in senior year. Commonly, those students also take AP statistics.  There are usually 1-2 classes of ~25 kids each in those classes.
    • Grades 6-8 also have an accelerated class that covers the material with greater depth.³
    • Cartnal also said that at the 7/8 school, students who are performing above grade level will be given the opportunity to test and if performing at 80% or above may be placed into higher grade level math classes. Students can accelerate through the 7/8 math and enter Advanced LC Math 1 Advanced with 9th graders. Students that accelerate quickly through the math pathways at LCHS in 10th or 11th grades will need to go into community colleges to take collegiate level applied math courses since the highest level of math taught at LCHS is AP Calculus.

The Committee then broke up into the two smaller groups:

Group 1 – Acceleration within the school day

This group was led by Anais Wenn and consisted of Board member Ellen Multari, Principal Karen Hurley, teachers Lori Arbucci, Christine Matthews, Debbie Au, & Mandy Refdern, and parents Joshua Gottheim, Sunyoung Fahimi, Alphan Altinok, William Schulze, Anna Hasbun, & Tuan Do.  It was suggested to create a shared Google doc and have the committee members document their work for all to see prior to the May 10th meeting. The topics they agreed to explore were:

  • Parameters/limitations in a public school system, other districts’ programs for acceleration at elementary level
  • Reviewing the research done in 2013-14 school year by the teachers and administrators in LCUSD regarding upper elementary math program
  • Research on traditional acceleration
  • Research on homogeneous groups/cohort based acceleration
  • Research on grade level placement based on ability level
  • Math lab/specialist to be shared among the 3 sites
  • Homogeneous groupings based on unit assessments with parents helping with small group instruction
  • Number of students performing above grade level at each site

The group’s Google shared doc is here:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/15Km0KsaaX7vI8j8lwq09u_8CSmcJ98AbENDYo3KioKQ/edit

Group 2 – Acceleration outside the school day

Group 2 was led by Superintendent Sinnette and consisted of Board member Brent Kuszyk, administrators Jim Cartnal and Debra Cradduck, teachers Marie Morin and Jane Chang, and parents Ajay Perumbetti and Stacey Boland.

There could be more options after school than during the day and could also be less expensive. A parent shared a concern that Redbird is isolating for students. Group 2 discussed the following options to investigate further, with parent interest in prioritizing the underlined options (options i-v):

  1. After-school math lab/course at LCHS – 3-4 days a week, teaching based on a set curriculum and support students’ understanding of 7/8 math. This model would have a certificated teacher teaching the class (the cost would be 0.2 FTE or about $15-$20K per year). Top 25 students across the district get in. Parents would have the responsibility for transportation. This option may be an interest for many, but not all families.
  2. Pull-out math lab/tutoring during the day for both ends of the ability spectrum. A lab/tutoring model could utilize online programs as well as a staff member to work with small groups of students. Example: 2 high students and 2 low students from 4 classes in a grade would go to the lab at the same time. Parent volunteers could be used to support instruction and/or work with students on the computers. Cost for this at once a week, grades 4-6 would be about 0.2 FTE or about $15-$20K per year, per site (about $60K for all three sites). Students would forgo math instruction to participate on the days they go to the lab/tutoring. There was some concern about students missing instruction. Space and scheduling issues would also be challenging. Once a week may not be enough to make significant gains.
  3. Accelerate in 6th grade – Can we accelerate in 6th grade? More info needed for parents to know what students need to make it into higher level math pathways in high school. Two levels of acceleration – one fast, rapid path; the other a slower, methodical pace would be ideal.
  4. Reduce barriers for Outside Groups – Reduce barriers at school sites for groups to come support students on campus outside school.
  5. Used Early-Bird / Late-Bird time for math – Students in grades 4-6 are required to be in school for longer than students in 1-3. The district is limited by contractual day for teachers.
  6. Math enrichment class based on elementary Spanish model – Discussion ensued about offering an enrichment math class that would follow the elementary Spanish teacher’s schedule. Students could opt into a math enrichment in lieu of Spanish or PE. Parents would have to choose. Students would have to qualify into it like they do with GATE (Cost would be about $100K or 1.0 FTE for a certificated rotating teacher.)
  7. Can we use Collaboration days for a math workshop/lab environment? If we use Collaboration days, a workshop/lab would be needed at each site to ensure equity of access. Messaging to parents about the intention of this model would have to be targeted as we don’t want it to become a provider of daycare. Thematic experiences could be designed for students to engage in based around next grade level’s standards or key ideas. Teachers could think of ideas or topics of what students would benefit from to do as extension project (i.e. ratios for 6th grade) for this model.
  8. Can we utilize La Canada Education Foundation (LCFEF) grants to mobilize resources?
  9. The group talked about starting a Google doc to share ideas, costs, and questions to think about. The Google doc can be accessed here:
    https://docs.google.com/document/d/15n02vvlqJvKNTexwmaanAkG2xbkuyYe3KMP0RS8r7FE/

1 – It should be noted that parents and teachers seemed to be talking about two vastly different goals when attempting to estimate how many students were capable of acceleration. Teachers answered the question “how many of your students do you estimate are (capable of) taking math one grade-level above their current grade?” Parents asked merely “how many of your students are capable of accelerating in math (i.e. learning at a rate faster than ‘normal’ rate used in school.)” These are two vastly different questions. For example, roughly half of the students in middle and high school fit the parent definition of acceleration since they are, according to district Executive Director of Student Program and Services Cartnal, taking the advanced College Prep pathway that compacts four years of math into three years. Using the teacher definition of acceleration, the number of students in 7th grade taking a math course at least one grade level above 7th grade math ranges from 5.8% in the 2017-18 school year to 8.7% in the 2015-16 school year. This percentage increases into high school as additional students skip a year by taking bridge courses or accredited math courses in the summer.

2 – Burris, C. C., Heubert, J. P., & Levin, H. M. (2006). Accelerating mathematics achievement using heterogeneous grouping. American Educational Research Journal, 43(1), 105–136. The conclusion about the study is misleading. The study was ostensibly about universal acceleration – the practice of detracking and providing acceleration in mathematics for all students in a heterogeneous setting, not just gifted or a limited number of students who met a minimum cutoff in a homogeneous group setting. In the district that was studied –  an urban public school district in Nassau County, Long Island, New York – the researchers tracked three years of students benefitting from a universal acceleration program where all students were accelerated in mathematics in middle school — taking the equivalent of Algebra 1 in 8th grade – and compared them with three years of students who had taken homogeneous classes prior to the switch to universal acceleration.  The major finding of the study was that:

“Examination of our first research question (i.e. would more students take advanced math courses if they took an accelerated algebra course in 8th grade?) showed that the percentage of students taking advanced math courses did increase after universal acceleration. More students took advanced mathematics classes, more students passed such courses along with their associated New York State examinations, and more students completed such courses a year sooner than the average student in New York State.”

The second question the researches sought to answer was “is the achievement of initial high achievers diminished by the inclusion of all learners in heterogeneously grouped mathematics classes?” The study found:

“…we found no evidence that initial high achievers, defined as students whose stanine scores were in the top 20% nationwide, learned less when all students were accelerated in mathematics and had studied in untracked, middle school mathematics classes. On two important externally developed, secure examinations, scores of initial high achievers either improved or remained statistically unchanged after universal acceleration.”

In other words, the study showed that “high achievers” placed in heterogeneous universally accelerated classes did not suffer any achievement decline compared to previous “high achievers” that had been placed in homogeneous, accelerated classes when given the same material. This is far different than the teacher’s summary that “there weren’t any significant gains for high achieving students when in classes with like abilities.” Worse, the teacher used the study to argue against acceleration when, in fact, the study showed just the opposite:

“…this study does not stand in isolation. Rather, it confirms the findings of other studies suggesting that an enriched, accelerated curriculum is more beneficial to at-risk learners and low-achieving students than a traditional remedial curriculum that slows down instruction (Bloom et al., 2001; Heubert & Hauser, 1999; Kifer et al., 1993; Mason et. al., 1992; Peterson, 1989; White et al., 1996).”

3 – LCUSD Executive Director of Student Programs and Services Cartnal asserted that grades 6-8 also have an accelerated class that covers the material with greater depth. This is partially incorrect. Grade 6 is in elementary school and all grade 6 classes in LCUSD are heterogeneously mixed classes. There are no 6th grade math classes that are accelerated. In addition, the accelerated classes in grades 7 and 8 do not merely cover material in greater depth. Algebra 1 topics such as basic properties of linear functions and solving simultaneous equations are taught in the 7th Grade Common Core Advanced class, and not in the non-accelerated class.