Math stalemate has district, teachers torn
A reversal of a recommendation, no consensus and a lack of a vote regarding the future of mathematics at Glendale Unified School District high schools exacerbated a widening schism among teachers evident during a school board meeting Tuesday.
For a third straight gathering, the Glendale Unified board convened to discuss the pros and cons of the College Preparatory Mathematics system, or CPM, versus the Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, or HMH, course.
District officials define CPM as “a nontraditional approach to math instruction that values student engagement in collaborative learning settings. The teacher facilitates learning activities that require students to discuss, write about and make sense of mathematical concepts using” eight mathematical standards.
CPM calls for much more group work than a traditional setting because students are often combined in groups of four and given real-world problems to solve with limited input from the instructor.
On the flip side, the district describes HMH as, “a more traditional math program that involves direct instruction from the teacher and provides examples and practice problems in a workbook format.”
HMH coursework follows closer along the lines of the current system used by the district with an emphasis on teacher instruction and textbook learning.
While the descriptions and debates regarding the systems haven’t changed during the past two weeks, the district staff’s recommendation to the board has.
Supt. Winfred Roberson Jr. did an about-face Tuesday, stating it was his recommendation, along with that of the district’s staff, for single adoption of CPM for three years for integrated math I, II and III classes.
“I had a chance to do my own research, as a superintendent, and talk to all the math experts that I could … and check in with staff, read reports,” he said. In this public educator’s best opinion, based upon the details and facts that I gathered, there is my recommendation as a superintendent. I continue to recommend a single adoption, but it is for CPM because I believe that it is closer aligned to the common core based upon details that I’ve gathered.”
Roberson’s changed stance is backed by data from a pilot program conducted this school year in which some teachers first used the CPM method from Aug. 16 to Nov. 17 and then switched to HMH from Nov. 27 to March 16.
Student achievement was better across the board with CPM in alignment with content standards and mathematical procedures, along with improvement in pre- and post-test comparisons (63% for CPM compared to 48% for HMH).
Even the estimated price was in CPM’s favor as three-year integration plan was estimated to cost $85 per student, while an HMH seven-year deal was expected to cost $105 per student.
Kelly King, assistant superintendent, added that the independent nonprofit EdReports.org gave CPM a passing grade in focus and coherence, rigor and math practice and usability. HMH did not pass the standards for focus and coherence and was not evaluated in other aspects.
The cost of both plans and the information from EdReports were new pieces of data that irritated board member Jennifer Freemon.
“I have to be quite honest; this report really frustrates me, in part because there is a lot of information that is in here that is new this time around that was not presented before that really looks to justify a process that has been messy,” she said.
Roberson’s switch Tuesday came after he gave a recommendation for single adoption of HMH during a prior board meeting on May 1.
Roberson previously endorsed a vote conducted by the Math Curriculum Study Committee, which polled 37 teachers from the district’s nine middle and high schools who took part in the pilot program.
The teachers voted by a slim margin of 19-18 in favor of HMH.
Complicating the matter further, district principals were asked to vote and their recommendation to Roberson, and district staff was for CPM, following a 6-2 vote with one abstention.
While the May 1 meeting was filled with backers of the CPM program, primarily from Glendale High, and Tuesday’s meeting included seven speakers. All were in favor of HMH and most hailed from Hoover or Crescenta Valley high schools.
“I would say, in a nutshell, the teachers at CV, 18-0, support HMH,” said Crescenta Valley math teacher Allen Freemon, husband of Jennifer Freemon, who was flanked by seven colleagues. “I know not everyone piloted, but we’ve all seen it, we’ve all talked, we’ve all been engaged in the process in one way or another. At Hoover it was 8-1. Talk to [Hoover teacher William] LeClear. That’s a significant number.”
Dr. Araz Marachelian, a physician, scientist, and parent of a Rosemont middle school student, said he was also not impressed with the CPM methodology.
“We need to teach our kids concepts first in a very coherent fashion,” she said. “I represent a group of parents who value this and are concerned because we believe that CPM is not the answer. We believe that children at the school need teacher-directed learning with student participation no matter the level of their achievement.”
Parents overwhelmingly back HMH, with 73% of 139 parents surveyed electronically from April 19 to 24 choosing the more traditional method.
The dissent among district instructors was summed up by board member Nayiri Nahabedian.
“I think it’s a fair guess that there are two schools, one in the south and one in the north, who want HMH and there are two schools, one in the south and one in the north, who want CPM,” Nahabedian said.
“I think that’s a fair statement to make,” King responded. “I don’t think it’s 100% at the four schools, but I think overwhelmingly, you can make that statement.”
One compromise proposed by board members Shant Sahakian and Armina Gharpetian was a dual-adoption program, in which schools and potentially teachers could choose their own system.
“I recognize that there’s a recommendation for single adoption but, personally, as one board member, I would want to see what a dual adoption looks like,” Sahakian said.
The board’s time to make a decision is dwindling, even as more questions and debate emerge.
King said a vote needs to be made at the next board meeting on June 4 to avoid any delays in implementing the new system for the 2018-19 school year.
“We need to make a decision by June 4 either way,” Greg Krikorian, board president, said. “We need to decide A, B or C.”
