What should the K-8 Math Adoption Process Be

Thank you to those who replied to our

Open letter to the community on the Cave Creek Unified K-8 Math Adoption

and mentioned that we offered no solutions.

The solution is that the K-8 Math Adoption perform due diligence to find a curriculum that will exceed state standards and allow our students to excel at an international level.  We found the simplicity of current process appalling.  This committee is deciding how to spend $400,000 plus thousands of hours of teacher training, yet the sum total of its efforts was voting by teachers on a rubric created by teachers, for teachers (see the rubric here).

There is no more important decision that the district will make over he next 5 years.  This decision will affect the learning of our students for the next 8 to 16 years and it has been is extremely lacking.

For this committee to perform an acceptable level of due diligence it must:

1. Analyze current student math achievement in math including how our students perform on the SAT, ACT and AP Math subject tests after 8 to 10 years of the instruction in CCUSD. Without knowing where our students are, how do you know where to go?
2. Set district goals for the adoption process that include selecting programs that include rigor, high expectations, and resources to allow the gifted to accelerate their learning.
3. Take the time to understand the ‘math debate’ and realize that programs like the NCTM endorsed Everyday Math have failed our students for the past 10 years. NCTM has failed our nation and it was thoroughly rebuked by the National Mathematics Advisory Panel in 2008. Had the committee understood this it could have avoided relying primarily on NCTM resources. The NMAP outlines the what an ideal and balanced curriculum should include. The committee chose to ignore this by not taking the time to understand the issues.
4. Include more programs in its analysis to include known rigorous and proven programs such as Sadlier-Oxford, HSP Math (aligned to the NMAP recommendations) and Singapore Math (a Core Knowledge recommendation). It seemed that the committee had one check box, ‘Aligned to the coming Common Core Standards’, but these programs do not need to meet the Common Core Standards, because they already exceed them.  We also fail to understand how the initial programs list was filtered to three choices after only one meeting (the first meeting was introductory only).  Where is the due diligence there?
5. Include more outside resources.  Did the committee look at nearby schools who are outperforming CCUSD and see what they are using?  Did the committee talk to college math professors to see if their process was  sound and that the final selections are appropriate to allow students to succeed in college?  Did the committee talk to anyone outside of the publishers?
6. Take the time to understand what academically highly performing countries are doing and incorporate it into the selection process.  There are plenty of resources including the TIMSS and PISA analyses to understand what they are doing right and why the US is falling behind.
7. Produce a draft report on its findings and have the report reviewed by outside experts and community review BEOFRE submitting a final report and recommendation to the governing board.  Again, this is the value of including outside resources to assure biases and preferences do not creep into the findings.  The majority of the committee was beholden directly to the administration.  As far as we can tell there isn’t even a report.