<p>
<p>MATH PANEL NOTES FROM AUGUST 26, 2008 MEETING Math Panel Attendees: Brad Beal, Jane Broom, Helen Burn, Chris Carlson, Tim Christensen, Bob Dean, Dan Dempsey, Bob McIntosh, Larry Nyland, Amanda Shearer-Hannah, Kim Vincent OSPI: Terry Bergeson, Lexi Domaradzki, Porsche Everson, George Bright, Jessica Vavrus SBE Board and Staff: Mary Jean Ryan, Linda Lamb, Steve Dal Porto, Bunker Frank, Edie Harding SBE Consultant: Linda Plattner, Strategic Teaching Edie Harding reviewed the OSPI and SBE legislative charge from 2SHB 2598, which requires OSPI to present the SBE with recommendations for no more than three basic math curricula for elementary, middle and high school within six months after the adoption of the standards. The K-8 standards were adopted at the end of April. OSPI has conducted its review and ranked 12 elementary programs and 13 middle school programs. Several SBE math panelists participated in that review. The review examined content alignment to the new standards which accounted for a weighted of 70 percent and a review of additional items including: assessment, equity and access, instructional planning and professional support, program organization and design and student learning for a weighted score of 30 percent. OSPI will bring a recommendation to the SBE at its September 24-25 meeting. SBE hired Strategic Teaching through a nationally competitive contract to assist the Board and its math panel with a review of the OSPI recommendations. The Board anticipates responding to OSPI’s recommendations at its November 5-6 meeting to meet the SBE deadline of responding within 2 months to the OSPI recommendations on elementary and middle school. The purpose of the math panel meeting today is to give Strategic Teaching guidance on its review. The math panel will also meet on October 14 to review Strategic Teachings’ findings. The work on high school curricular menu will November and December, as the high school standards were adopted in late July. A meeting date for the math panel will be determined as soon as the SBE determines that OSPI has completed its work on the high school curricular menu review. OSPI is also reviewing supplemental materials for all the current curriculum programs and developing a request to publishers to participate in the development of an online K-12 math curriculum that would be aligned to the new math standards and be of no cost to school districts. Based on the publisher responses, OSPI will ask the legislature for funding to complete the work. Linda Plattner described her plans for the review. Her math content reviewers include: Steve Wilson, Andy Clark, Connie Colton, and Sue Pimentel. She will also use a statistician, Sean Mulvenon. 1. PROJECT GOALS FOR K-8 REVIEW •<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Review OSPI process •<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Validate findings of 4 programs identified by OSPI (see project process below) •<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Use additional expertise to look at content in a slightly different way and to look at more aspects of the programs to shed light on additional program characteristics. •<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Work with Math Panel, particularly around •<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Process Strategic Teaching uses •<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>How results are reported •<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Maximizing the impact of results (districts and SBE) 2.<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>STRATEGIC TEACHING PROCESS •<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Looking at grades 2, 4, and 7 for content alignment only (not other pieces such as assessment, equity and access, student learning that OSPI reviewed) •<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Reviewing the Teacher’s edition and student text. While we are not looking at enrichment and support materials, etc., materials that appear in the teacher’s edition will be considered. Homework pages, for example, might easily be in an extra workbook, and is an important consideration for the amount of practice. • Two independent reviewers will review every program at each grade level (At least 3 reviewers will do pieces of each grade level. At least 3 reviewers will do pieces of each program. “Teams” will be formed and re-formed.) •<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>4-point rubric (see rubric attachment)— The SBE Panel recommended rather than 5 point rubric •<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>After 2 people review a program for a grade level, they compare scores, paying particular attention to those with a 2-point+ spread. A reviewer may choose to change his or her score. •<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Strategic Teaching will compare ST results to OSPI’s results, paying particular attention to the aggregated results. We intend to aggregate Core Content, Additional Key Content, and Process standards, as well as by strand (number, algebra, measurement....) 3.<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>CONTENTS OF STRATEGIC TEACHING REPORT •<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Use lay language and attach a glossary if necessary •<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>OSPI Report •<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Summary • Other possible methodology •<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>3-point rubric •<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Analyze OSPI 1’s. SBE Math Panelists had concerns about what a “1” really stood for under OSPI’s methodology. Do they become Strategic Teaching 2’s or 3’s? •<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Strategic Teaching findings by program (without rankings) •<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>ST results of content match (more information is useful. Where does and doesn’t it align? The dashboard/rudder is better than picking the right horse.) •<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>ST results compared to OSPI and analysis of the differences •<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Mathematical soundness •<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>“Teachability” •<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Content beyond the standards that detracts (Excessive content) •<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Quality of TE •<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Use of direct instruction, class discussion, group work, independent work •<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Other notable qualities (strengths &amp; weaknesses) 4. QUALITATIVE VS. QUANTITATIVE RESULTS How do we keep the focus on information rather than data and statistical analysis? •<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Focus on helping school districts make the best use of this data •<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Very well written •<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Clear language, layman’s terms •<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Be sure you “put yourself” on the page—biases need to be put up front PANEL COMMENTS •<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Chris Carlson presented his review of the OSPI data- he posed the question of how likely would it be that a random 24 reviewers would get the same score. He expressed concerns (as did others) with why programs such as Singapore were not more highly ranked. He found a wide range in terms of how each reviewer “graded” each program although his “ranking” did not change the top 4 programs that OSPI ranked, he felt that several programs ranked underneath were close enough statistically that they should be examined. •<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Look at the top 6 programs To determine whether there is a statistical difference between #2, 3, 4 or to better help districts that are using or want to use #4, 5, 6 (Note: SBE has charged Strategic Teaching to look at the top 4, based what ST finds the SBE may decide to have ST look at more if ST does not find similar alignment to OSPI’s) •<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Are some standards more important than others? Be sure to look at important mathematical concepts that are critical for kids to know to be successful in math (see attachment for list of major topics ST plans to focus on) •<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Provide the dashboard kind of information that helps school districts determine where the gaps are •<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Save the reasons for the rubric decisions to provide information the school district decisions • Have another mathematician with a different view of mathematics look at the same topics •<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Look at the additional programs will important for supplementation •<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>The form of the data presentation is critical. One person prefers pie charts with each slice color-coded by the individual score of a reviewer •<span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Include strengths and weaknesses of programs and up-front section that states guiding principles.</p>
<div></div>
</p>