Math efforts starting to add up

Sisters schools are taking an entirely new approach to math instruction.

The Sisters School Board workshop on January 18 centered around a status report on a series of innovative programs. Some consistent themes emerged from the two-hour presentation that included: the value of common assessments; the huge gains seen when struggling Sisters students were "double-dosed;" the positive effects of student placement based on ability and performance rather than age or grade level; and the need for a significant increase in regular collaboration time within the overall (K-12) math department.

Kicking off the workshop, board chair Chris Jones said, "We've been discussing some of the math test results for the last three years now. Two years ago we had a presentation from Mr. O'Neill and some others on the math program. We've seen some changes in math scores to the good, and we've seen some other issues arise."

Dan O'Neill, high school math teacher and department head, said, "If you would have asked me at the end of last year about the strength of our high school math department I would have said we (were) really good. I was excited that our kids did so well on the OAKS test, our percentage above the state average increased dramatically.

"This year we've improved a lot, but we are not as strong as I thought we were," continued O'Neill. "When we look at common assessments and how powerful they could be, and we are not using common assessments all the way through, we could be a lot better."

Common assessment is an assessment or test typically created collaboratively by a team of teachers responsible for the same grade level, course, or content area. By agreeing on common assessments, teachers can better compare students' performance teacher-to-teacher and grade-to-grade.

"This is the first courageous step," said Superintendent Jim Golden. "...How do we get better? What are the resources we need to get better? We are now, for the first time ever ... aligning our systems kindergarten through grade 12. I know that last year the board was very frustrated with what they felt were a lot of excuses (about math test score performance). Today I see a bunch of people (the math team) that want to get better. Research tells us that it takes three to five years (to complete the process)... we've taken the first step."

Board member Glen Lasken said, "I want to commend the group, because a few years ago math was a question area, a problem area: 'Why are we not doing so well?' Now we have a group that is energized, you've got materials that seem to be working for you, you've got methods that you are getting and improving on. You are going in a real positive direction."

Board member Andrew Gorayeb said, "I'm blown away. You are innovating. I was taught about best practices (as a) shortcut to innovations. Is there an opportunity for you to tap in to other math teams to find others that have succeeded in conquering these challenges?"

Board member Cheryl Stewart noted, "(Struggling) kids need more time in class... the kids that were taking two 70-minute periods of math a day made huge progress."

Board chair Chris Jones echoed that sentiment in support of "double-dosing." Jones made a plea for pushing the application of the double-dosing approach for struggling students way down in the earlier grades, even at the expense of electives at the middle and high school. This system is already in place at the elementary school.

Jones and Golden discussed the long-term benefits of early identification and remediation for struggling students so that when the students got to middle school and high school they had the fundamental tools to effectively attack algebra and geometry.

One catalyst for this invigorated approach to math instruction was the new math textbook and curriculum adoption last year. The adoption of the new comprehensive K-12 curriculum forced discussions that uncovered significant disconnects between the elementary, middle and high school math programs.