Informational (no action required by Board) Action Report (Board will be required to take action)

DATE: June 4, 2014

FROM: Directors McLaren & Peters, School Board

I. TITLE

Amendment 1 to K-5 Mathematics Materials Adoption For Action: June 4, 2014
II. WHY BOARD ACTION IS NECESSARY

The School Board is responsible for adoption of new instructional materials.

III. FISCAL IMPACT/REVENUE SOURCE

Fiscal impact to this action will be ________________, compared to the adoption recommended
in the BAR.

The revenue source for this amendment is the General Fund.
Expenditure: One-time Annual Other Source

IV. POLICY IMPLICATION

This action implements board Policy 2015, Selection and Adoption of instruction Materials.

V. RECOMMENDED MOTION

It is the intention of the Board that the K-5 mathematics adoption be supported by thorough
professional development that emphasizes clear, coherent mathematics teaching, including focus
on mathematical content, thorough, clearly presented coverage of skills at every level, ample
practice for the purpose of developing fluency in performing operations, and students
achievement of mastery at each level.

We move that the School Board amend the motion for adoption of K-5 Mathematics Materials to
include a dual adoption of Math in Focus Singapore Math and enVisionMath Realize for the K-5
curriculum, and that the BAR be amended and updated to read as follows:

Adoption Recommendation

(a) Enact a dual adoption of enVisionMath Realize 2015 Edition (enVision) and Math in
Focus Singapore Math 2013 Edition as approved K-5 Mathematics Materials;

(b) Principals will elect, by written notice received by the Assistant Superintendent of
Teaching and Learning not later than June 20, 2014, either enVision or Math in Focus;

(c) Schools will be committed to the adoption choice for the course of the 7-year adoption
cycle.
School Board Briefing/Proposed Action Report


(d) During the course of the adoption, principals of new schools coming online in the
following year may elect, by May 15
th
of that year to adopt either enVision or Math in
Focus and receive it the subsequent year, with full district support.

(e) All schools will receive equivalent amounts of district support for their elected
curriculum, including core textbooks and workbooks, teacher guides, assessment
materials, intervention materials, online resources and professional development.
Schools electing Math in Focus or enVision according to the provisions in b), c) and d)
shall receive full implementation, including professional development, at no cost to the
school budget.

(f) District staff shall develop the capacity and expertise to fully support building needs in
both programs. The Assistant Superintendent of Teaching and Learning will report to the
School Board on an annual basis about how schools have been supported in using
enVision and Math in Focus.

And

(g) Authorize the Superintendent to execute contracts with Pearson for the enVision
materials in the estimated amount of $3,130,000 and with__________ for the Math in
Focus materials in the estimated amount of $1,370,000; and

(h) to take all the necessary steps to successfully and fully implement this decision.

VI. BOARD COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

A dual adoption of these two curricular materials was proposed and discussed in the Curriculum
and Instruction Policy Committee on May 12, 2014.

VII. BACKGROUND INFORMATION

The current K-5 math curriculum Everyday Math has been in use for 7 years. The district is due
to update its curriculum to better meet the needs of students.

History: In the fall of 2013, a 27-member Math Adoption Committee (MAC) was formed to
review eight options. Community input was sought. The committee narrowed the selection down
to three choices, all of which were considered viable options. The committee followed a
coherent, thoughtful, and rigorous process which resulted in the choice of enVision as Seattle
Public Schools new K-5 math adoption. The primary rationale given was its alignment to the
Common Core State Standards.
As a result of that process, it also became clear that there is a significant group of parents,
educators, and school communities with a strong commitment to another finalist curriculum,
Math in Focus. This was reflected in the community input (from 258 community members)
which significantly favored Math in Focus (See Attachment A and data below).


Total Votes to Recommend program

Total % Yes % No
enVision 83 40% 60%

Go Math 44 21% 79%
Math in
Focus
134 65% 35%

Rationale for Dual Adoption -- Community, Policy, Equity.

Board Policy 2015 directs adoption committees to take community input into consideration
(After a thorough process that solicits input from the community on their opinions and values.)
A dual adoption respects both the volition of the community and that of the adoption committee.

Math in Focus introduces some concepts earlier than outlined in the CCSS, making it by some
estimations, more rigorous than Common Core. This does not disqualify it from consideration,
but instead aligns it well with Board Policy 2015 which states that standards should be
considered as a minimum level of rigor, not a ceiling.

Moreover, we maintain that as a district we have a greater mandate; our greatest obligation is to
our students, to provide them with the very best materials to master mathematics, and develop
confidence in the subject.

This is a long term investment to last 7 or more years. We need to offer our students the very
best materials available that will serve them well, possibly even above and beyond mandated
standards.

A dual adoption will offer more equitable opportunities to Seattle Schools by fully funding
materials and choice for all schools.

Community preference has spurred us to focus attention on the many valuable aspects of Math in
Focus Singapore. The recommendation for a two-program adoption of enVision and Math in
Focus provides Seattle schools with a choice between two high-quality and well-regarded
instructional materials.

Facts pointing to the strengths of Math in Focus include:

- Materials were overwhelmingly favored by the community feedback. (See attached
Community Feedback comments summary)
- Second-highest community rating by teachers participating in the community survey.
- Internationally recognized materials/program, known for and characterized by high
standards, clarity, development of mental math skills, student mastery, and problem
solving.
- Used as a resource to guide the creation of the Common Core Standards (See Achieve
document Attachment).
- Not text intensive (in contrast with enVision), more accessible for English Language
Learners or students for whom reading may be a challenge.
- Math in Focus offers differentiation opportunities for advanced learners, including
program continuity K-8.
- Clarity of program materials, as described by numerous community feedback comments.


It is the opinion of Directors McLaren and Peters that the educational achievement and unity of
our district will be enhanced by honoring the distinct approaches of Math in Focus Singapore
and enVision, and allowing choice between the two CCSS-aligned curricula, paid for by the
district.

A dual adoption will also address the need to offer schools options in an equitable manner, in
accordance with the districts Educational and Racial Equity Policy #0030, by permitting schools
to choose the materials that best suit their needs without having to apply for a curriculum waiver,
which can be onerous or unaffordable for some schools. This supports a core principle of the
Strategic Plan.

Academic implications
This adoption is intended to
unify Seattle Schools in its mission of empowering all K-5 students to master
mathematics, develop confidence and fluency in the subject, and master or surpass the
Common Core State Standards.
focus the district sharply on developing a unified, coherent system of teaching K-5
mathematics.

Opportunities which may be afforded:
In recent years, there has been limited sharing of practice between schools, due to the varied
approaches and curricula employed throughout the district. Because schools will be working
with only two different, high quality methods of teaching math, teachers can have the
opportunity to strengthen and improve practice with maximum effectiveness. Fidelity to meeting
and surpassing the Common Core State standards, rather than to particular texts, would be the
goal. By allowing and encouraging this parallel teaching, our expert district math leaders will be
informed by their understanding and facilitation of both approaches, and can share their learning
throughout the district. Teachers also can participate in sharing between schools. Over time, the
results of the two approaches might be fairly compared Thus, it is possible that the dual adoption
will eventually allow the district to arrive at consensus on what resources are most effective.

Math in Focus Singapore and enVision employ different methods of presenting elementary
mathematics, yet both are recognized as being aligned to the Common Core State Standards.
Singapore Math was an important resource in development of the Common Core State Standards
(see Attachment B); both curricula were highly rated by the adoption committee; provision of
both curricula demonstrates thoughtful consideration of the judgment of community members,
gives desired choice to schools, gives teachers an outstanding opportunity for innovation and
improvement of instructional practice, and realizes the provisions of Board Policy 2015.

Further analysis required:
It is understood that providing Professional Development and ongoing support for two sets of
materials may entail additional effort and coordination.

Also, applying our Multi-Tiered System of Support (MTSS) in the context of the two curricula
will need to be carefully planned.

Finally, schools choosing Math in Focus Singapore may need to develop plans for introducing
new students, transferring in at grades 3 and above, to the Singapore method.


VIII. STAFF ANALYSIS

To be prepared by StaffAnalysis of the amendment by staff includes the following:
1. Estimated costs of a dual adoption compared to an EnVision adoption.
2. Impact of delaying the decision of a curriculum for each school until June 20, 2014
3. Impact of a dual adoption on students in schools with high mobility
4. Difficulty of supporting dual curricula
5. Actual performance of one school using MiF
6. Integrity of the selection process
7. Impact on principals of a revised selection process

Cost Comparison:

The added cost as a result of a dual adoption is estimated at about $3 million.

If enVision is adopted as a single curriculum, we anticipate that 66 schools will use it, and four
schools currently using MIF or a Singapore-type curriculum will remain with their present
choice. We have been asked to consider the costs resulting from 15 schools selecting MIF,
while providing equal professional development training for both sets of materials.

We were asked to look at the number of days needed for professional development for MIF. The
publisher has provided several different estimates of the needed training. The most recent
recommendation provided is four to eight days, over two years. This compares to a single day of
training for enVision.

The vendor for the Envision curriculum charges $142 per student, the vendor for the MIF
curriculum charges $228 per student. The difference is $86 per student. If 15 schools selected
MIF, the increased charges for approximately 6,000 students are about $750,000 (for all
calculations, we used 70 schools total, averaging 400 students and 20 teachers per school).

To this must be added the increased professional development time. Assuming four days for
MIF, the added cost of three extra days is about $315,000 for 15 schools over two years. In
addition, the amendment requires that all envision schools receive the same additional training,
so an additional $1,150,000 must be added for training for the 55 enVision schools. There is also
the added cost paid for coaches for envision schools. We have assumed one day of training by
envision, and 2 days of training by District trainers. This totals $145,000.

Finally, developing materials for two programs, ongoing coaching and added training of teachers
who move from one school curriculum to another, adds 1.5 FTE for the first year, and 1.0 FTE
for years 2-7, for a total of about $740,000 at present rates.

The total increase is about $3,095,000, bringing the total math curriculum cost for seven years to
$6,850,000.

These figures do not account for schools which are already using either a Singapore-type
curriculum such as MIF or envision. The savings are unlikely to be substantial, however, as the
enVision training is only one day, and only one program currently uses MIF and any other
program would require training in MIF-specific features.

We have also reviewed whether the MIF costs are overstated, because of the inclusion of
manipulatives in their cost sheets. It is not. Both programs provide the same manipulatives.
The MIF vendor lists them separately, while the envision vendor includes them in its base price.
Staff will look at the actual need for manipulatives when placing orders, but for comparison
purposes the figures are the same.

Timing of Placing Orders

Staffs best estimate is the 11th of June for the latest date we can receive all of the principal's
decisions on choice in a dual adoption and still have a reasonable chance of getting materials into
schools by the end of the second week of school. Teachers will have access to online resources
for the adoption as soon as the adoption has been approved. Those resources together with
materials prepared by C&I math specialists will prepare teachers to do initial assessments and
establish classroom math practices during the first 2 weeks. By the third week students need
access to student instructional materials in order to not adversely impact instruction. Note that
going with the 11th still presents a risk that that materials will be late.
After a final decision on the adoption is made the Instructional Materials Specialist must
complete and verify all order forms. Forms are submitted to purchasing and must be processed
into a complete order to submit to the vendor. Then the order must be put together by the vendor
and shipped to our warehouse. The warehouse then has to process and ship the material to
schools.
Past practice has been to order adopted materials in May to ensure arrival to school before the
new school year begins. For this adoption our original last possible decision date on materials
was the 4
th
of June. This assumed that the Instructional Materials Specialist could prepopulate
orders for one proposed set of materials and be ready to hand in orders to purchasing by the 6
th
of
June. With this timeline, receipt of instructional materials at schools would likely be sometime in
the first two weeks after the start of school. This was the latest date that staff felt was acceptable
for a successful adoption.
With a dual adoption schools must be given some time to decide on their materials. If we give
them just one week, until June 11
th
this would increase our risk of not getting materials in the
hands of students within the first 2 weeks of school. In this scenario, the Instructional Materials
Specialist has 2 days to ensure every principal submits a choice and then must process a more
complex set of choices into order sheets and submit to purchasing by June 13
th
. Purchasing has 2
weeks to process the order and submit to the vendor by the end of June. Receipt of materials in
our warehouse would then be towards the end of the third week in August, which is their busiest
time of the year. This puts receipt of materials by the end of the second week of school at severe
risk and most likely pushes it to the third week, which will impact implementation.
Pushing the decision date to the 20
th
of June would extend the delivery to schools even later,
likely towards the end of the first month of school.

Impact of dual adoption on teachers in schools with high mobility

Research suggests unaligned curriculum across and within districts creates gaps in learning
when students move (Rennie Center Report on: Challenges and Solutions to Educating Mobile
Students 201). The negative academic impacts associated with intra-district students mobility

are: curriculum, loss of social capitol (long term relationships with caring adults and peers);
emotional effects. All of these elements impair student achievement. These impacts also affect
the new teachers and peers in the school that mobile students have transferred to. It takes time to
bring students up to speed academically; mobile students require individualized attention during
class and unaligned curriculum make this even more challenging; student mobility disrupts the
flow of instruction and impacts the amount of material that can be taught. These academic
cohesion and classroom environment/management issues could seriously impede Policy #0030
as well as Goal 1 of the Strategic Plan-Challenge and Support Each Student. Examples include:
the educational excellence of all children not being supported and increased opportunities for
disproportional discipline issues for our mobile students (who are predominantly children of
color and children form low income backgrounds).

Difficulty of support dual curricula

A dual adoption or multiple math textbook adoptions impose a number of difficulties on SPS
staff. A few of these are articulated here.

In response to the SPS Board inquiry about Highline School Districts method of supporting
teachers in using Math in Focus, it is our understanding that Highline utilized local staff to train
teachers in year 2 of implementation. While at first glance this appears to be a cost saving
measure, it likely would prove not to be the case in Seattle. Current staffing structure for the
Math Program of the Curriculum and Instruction Department is largely based on Title 1 and LAP
funding. Compliance with the parameters associated with these programs does not allow a staff
person funded from these sources to do the type of training necessary to implement a new
textbook. Offering a supported dual adoption will require staff to be added and funded from
other sources, potentially taking funding from other worthy students and programs.

The Math Program is committed to providing the following: supporting teachers in
differentiating instruction, supporting teachers and teams in data analysis around benchmark
assessments, creating and maintaining a website of instructional supports, and developing scope
and sequences for each grade. Providing these supports at even a minimal level will require the
addition of staff members. At this time, there is insufficient funding to support dual or multiple
versions of this work.

Finally, as previously mentioned, the cost to the individual learner who changes schools over the
course of a year is high. Additionally, the challenge this poses to the receiving teacher and
schools will not be small. Students may have been taught skills in a different order and as a
result very likely may be missing prior learning at the receiving school. The receiving teacher
must fill this gap while not allowing the student to fall behind. An avoidable burden falls to the
individual teacher and the school to support this new student.

Even if funding is secured and staff members are added to support all of the work required by a
dual or multiple adoptions, SPS runs the risk of diluting the effectiveness of any one program.
Concentrating efforts, ideas, innovations and supports on one program likely provides the best
opportunity for success for all schools and students.

Actual performance of Schmitz Park using Singapore


Schmitz Park began using Singapore Math in 2008. In 2011, SPS Policy 2020, Waiver of Basic
Instructional Materials grandfathered their use of the textual material for three more years. The
policy states that, schools that received a waiver prior to 2011-2012 school year will retain their
waiver for the 3-year period, and will be assessed during the 2013-2014 year to determine if the
data supports continuing a waiver and if the schools are interested in continuing. Below is an
evaluation of their 3-year data (2011-2014).

3-Year Elementary Math Achievement Data (Schmitz Park)
Seattle Public Schools (SPS) analyzes student achievement data from the MSP state assessment,
which is administered annually to all students in 3rd to 8th grade. Two types of measures based
on MSP results are considered. The first measure is a Proficiency Index, which is a summary
average of student performance levels (1 to 4) achieved by students at the school. (Level 1 = well
below standard; Level 2 = below standard; Level 3 = meets standard; Level 4 = exceeds
standard) A proficiency index is an average that ranges from a minimum of 1.00 to a maximum
of 4.00. The second measure is a Median Student Growth Percentile (SGP), which is the median
growth achieved by students at the school. (Each SGP is a percentile ranking [1-99] indicating
how well the student performed compared to his/her academic peers across the state i.e.,
students with the same achievement in previous years. An SGP is considered a growth metric
because it measures a students achievement in comparison to how they performed in the past.)

To measure whether aggregate achievement is typical (average) or atypical (significantly
above or below average) for a given school, SPS compares the schools achievement to the
achievement of other schools across Washington State with similar demographics for enrolled
students. To identify similar schools for comparison, SPS uses statewide data to employ a
statistical model that generates a School Characteristics Index (SCI) for each school derived
from demographics factors which include enrollment size, % of students by ethnicity, %
students eligible for free or reduced-priced meals, % English language learners, % special
education students, and % gifted/highly capable students.

The table below provides Proficiency Index and Median SGP results for Schmitz Park
Elementary School for the past three years. Results are provided for all enrolled students (grades
3rd to 5th) and for the subset of students eligible for free or reduced-priced meals at Schmitz
Park. The table includes the average for similar schools statewide for each metric and student
group. SPS employs a statistical test (T-Test) to measure if the observed difference between the
school result and the similar school average is statistically significant, and at what confidence
level (see note below table). A significant result indicates the difference was unlikely to have
occurred based solely on random factors.

In addition, Schmitz Park results are compared to a subset of similar SPS schools who are in the
same statewide similar schools cluster as Schmitz Park and also are known to have implemented
the District adopted elementary mathematics textbook, Every Day Math (EDM). SPS
comparison schools for the Schmitz Park analysis include: Bryant Elementary, John Hay
Elementary, Laurelhurst Elementary, Loyal Heights Elementary, West Woodland Elementary,
and Catharine Blaine K-8, McGilvra Elementary. (McGilvra began using enVisions in January of
2013. The 2.5 years prior they were implementing EDM. )


Measure Group # Students
School
Result
Similar
Schools
Average
(WA State) Difference
Statistical
Significance
(T-Test)
Similar
Schools
Average
(SPS Only) Difference
Statistical
Significance
(T-Test)
Al l Students 554 3.07 3.09 -0.01 not si gni f. 3.34 -0.27 **
FRL Students Onl y 70 2.46 2.59 -0.13 not si gni f. 2.68 -0.22 *
Al l Students 347 49.86 51.44 -1.57 not si gni f. 53.58 -3.72 *
FRL Students Onl y 40 37.93 46.85 -8.92 * 49.16 -11.24 **
Medi an SGP
Profi ci ency Index

* Significant at p <.1 level (90% confidence)
** Significant at p < .01 level (99% confidence)

An analysis of Schmitz Park middle school data was completed. We found that there is NOT a
statistically significant difference in 6th grade MSP achievement between SP alumni and a
matched comparison group of similar students from other feeder schools.

Integrity of selection process

In two stages, culminating in a lengthy process by which 27 community members, teachers, and
math instructional leaders vetted proposed elementary math programs against approved criteria,
designed specifically to identify the best possible math program for SPS, a recommendation was
made. The work entailed hundreds of hours of collective screening time, looking through the
program components extensively. Further, the decision was built on open discussion and
argument, allowing members the opportunity to speak beyond the screening data to what was
considered best practice. A wide range of opinions were expressed and although there was not
absolute consensus, all members agreed to the process and ultimately, whatever recommendation
emerged.

A dual adoption proposal, as suggested by Board amendment, puts into question the validity of
the process undertaken and compromises the current, established decision-making process by
which programs are adopted. While Board members have called into question how the
committee took community input into account, the degree to which benchmarking data should
influence program selection, and whether or not standards should shape screening criteria, this
committee undertook each step of the process carefully, with forethought, and intentionality.
Throughout the process, decisions were made collectively with frequent oversight and assurances
that are members voices were heard.

The very purpose of seating an adoption committee is to ensure that program selection is not
rushed, based on the will of just a few individuals or in any way unduly influenced by special
interests. Further, as was the case in this adoption, members are carefully chosen to reflect a
wide range of regional zones, perspectives (parent, teacher, student, community), and
backgrounds. An argument could be made that modifying this recommendation last minute,
without the safeguards put in place to ensure compliance to these principals, runs counter to the
process that produced any recommendation to begin with. Essentially, it defeats the purpose of
an adoption process.

Impact on principals of making a decision

Principals will be the single owner of the decision. They will have to make a choice based on the
knowledge of the school without the input of the school community. This puts the impact of the
decision on one person. Considering that it is late in the school year this is an extremely difficult

decision to make in a short period of time. Many of the principals have relied on the MAC to
consider the various textual materials and make a recommendation. To evaluate the two
resources for the purpose of selection would take an extensive amount of the principals time.

In addition, according to the SPS Collective Bargaining Agreement, page 12, article II, 5a, b, and
c, the building leadership team the faculty representative organizations shall make
recommendations to the building principals/program managersan instructional program that is
based upon input from local citizen groups, academic sources, SPS philosophy, and consistent
with SPS goals. The recommendations of the faculty representative organization within an
instructional setting shall become the accepted rules, regulations and procedures for that building
upon approval of the building principal/program manager. Depending on the building decision
making matrix, the choice of an instructional material may require a building leadership team
process.

IX. STATEMENT OF ISSUE
The motion addresses the imperatives established by board Policy 2015 to include community
input in selection of materials, to choose materials based on considerations such as clarity,
flexibility and the special needs of individuals and groups, and to regard standards as a baseline
(minimum level of rigor), not a ceiling or primary objective.
In this manner, we support a clear direction moving forward so that all schools will have the
resources and the professional development they need at the start of the 2014-15 school year.
This will provide principals and teachers the tools they need to structure the instructional
program that meets the needs of their school community.

By fully establishing and supporting a dual adoption, we will establish financial sustainability
and predictability that ensures the stability of resources and professional development;
This also upholds the districts Educational and Racial Equity Policy 0030.

This motion will maximize the effectiveness of our continuous work in improving instructional
practice.

X. ALTERNATIVES
1. The Board may adopt the current proposal, or adopt this amendment, or it may propose
the sole adoption of other materials that were submitted for consideration (including
Math in Focus), or it may take no action on either proposal or amendment, and not adopt
new mathematics materials for the 2014-15 school year.
2. Selecting the current proposal is not advisable because it would fail to fully honor
stipulations of Board Policy 2015, and would limit the opportunities and choices for
schools.
3. A board proposal for a sole adoption of Math in Focus or any of the other remaining
options is not advisable because it would not fully acknowledge the recommendation of
the MAC.
4. No action is not advisable, for reasons stated in the Background description. The
districts 7-year curriculum cycle is complete, and failure to update district materials
would deprive SPS students of stronger, more effective instructional materials for
mathematics, and would result in lack of coherence due to continued reliance on the

districts existing adoption, Everyday Math, and an array of multiple curricula used by
different schools to supplement or replace it.
XI. RESEARCH AND DATA SOURCES / BENCHMARKS

Strengths & Advantages of Math in Focus and Singapore Math:

Singapore Math is an internationally recognized curriculum, known for its high standards of
rigor, clarity and strong results of math mastery.

It was used as a resource to guide development of Common Core State Standards (See
Attachment B, attached, excerpt following)

Singapores Mathematics Syllabus
Singapores students have consistently been high performers, ranking first in the world in
mathematics on the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) in 2003. As
a result, researchers have explored Singapores successful approach to mathematics instruction
to identify features that could work in U.S. schools.

There are several components that account for Singapores success, including a highly logical
national mathematics framework, mathematically rich problem-based textbooks, challenging
mathematics assessments, and highly-qualified mathematics teachers. ()

Because of its quality, the Singapore Syllabus was an important resource for the developers of
the CCSS. Source: http://www.achieve.org/files/CCSSandSingapore.pdf)

The Math in Focus Singapore Math curricular materials are not text intensive, therefore will not
pose unnecessary barriers to English Language Learners or any students for whom reading may
be a challenge.

Math in Focus also offers advancement opportunities for advanced learners (and also offers a
complete K-8 continuum of materials).

It was adopted district-wide and used by neighboring district Highline School District (pop.
18,281; FRL 70 percent) with solid results. The district plans to extend adoption to middle
school (6
th
grade). (Seattle: 50,618 pop., FRL 42 percent)

BENCHMARKING DATA

Board Policy 2015 directs that benchmarking be a part of the curriculum adoption process. For
various reasons given in staff BAR, benchmarking was not done during the math adoption
process.

Both curricula recommended for adoption are currently used at some schools in the district, and
by neighboring districts.

Seattle Public Schools That currently use Math in Focus and/or Singapore Math editions:

Alki Elementary (Math in Focus)

Schmitz Park Elementary (Singapore Math) (since 2008-9)
K-5 STEM at Boren (Singapore Math)
McDonald International Elementary (Math in Focus)

Seattle Public Schools using enVision program, all editions:

Montlake Elementary
Jane Addams K-8
Thurgood Marshall Elementary (since 2012)
McGilvra Elementary

Singapore Math has been used by Schmitz Park Elementary School for nearly 6 years (since 08-
09) which has a longstanding reputation for preparing its students well for middle school math.
Neighboring school district, Highline Public Schools adopted Math in Focus in 2011-12, in
response to significant community support, and now plans to extend its use of Math in Focus to
middle school as well. Highline is also under the state mandate to adapt to Common Core, so it
would appear that Math in Focus is meeting this need.

There are benchmarking references that indicate a range of schools and districts selecting
Singapore Math or Math in Focus and achieving good results, including, Seattle neighboring
districts of Highline Public Schools (MIF) and Shoreline Public Schools (EnVision. Shoreline
(8854 students, 28% FRL, 7% ELL) adopted enVision for the 2010-11 school year. Highline
(18,281 students, 70% FRL, 22% ELL) adopted Math in Focus in grades 3-4 in the 2011-12
school year, followed by K-5 in 2012-13 and 6
th
grade in 2013-14.

Full analysis table is included (Attachment F), with summary data included in the table below.
The benchmarking analysis supports the selection of both enVision and Math in Focus:

- Highline and Shoreline both have exhibited consistent annual growth in percentage of
students meeting standards (grades 3,4,5) since the adoption of new materials.
- 3-year achievement growth of the 2012-13 5
th
grade cohort for both Highline (4.9%) and
Shoreline (4.2%) are above both the state (0.6%) and Seattle district average (1.3%).
- Free/Reduced Lunch students in both Highline (70% FRL) and Shoreline (28% FRL) are
exceeding the state average and exhibiting consistent growth over the past 4 years.
Highline (Math in Focus)


% of Students meeting standard

Annual Growth in % meeting standard

2009-10 2010-11
2011-
12
2012-
13 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013
3rd
45.7% 48.5% 57.1% 54.8%

2.8% 8.6% -2.3%
4th
35.8% 45.8% 50.9% 58.2%

10.0% 5.1% 7.3%
5th
42.3% 52.2% 55.8% 58.2%

9.9% 3.6% 2.4%


Shoreline (enVision)


% of Students meeting standard

Annual Growth in % meeting standard

2009-10 2010-11
2011-
12
2012-
13 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013
3rd
67.0% 69.8% 76.7% 78.8%

2.8% 6.9% 2.1%

4th
63.0% 70.6% 73.3% 72.7%

7.6% 2.7% -0.6%
5th
67.1% 69.6% 73.1% 75.4%

2.5% 3.5% 2.3%

Shaded cells indicate data following the adoption of new math instructional materials
Data compiled from http://reportcard.ospi.k12.wa.us

Singapore Math Instruction Grade 5 Data
K5 STEM @ Boren (Seattle Public Schools)
Mr. C. Parsley
Demographics:
48% Minority Students
Languages Spoken at Home = Tagalog, Finnish, Oromo, Vietnamese, Hindi, English

Class Mean MAP Math (RIT Score): 242.84
On NWEA National Normative Scale this mean exceeds End-of-Year Mean for Grade 11.

Average Growth For Cohort RIT Score (Fall 2012 Spring 2014 Two Year): 29.88
Normal expected growth for this period is 17.2 RIT Points

Growth Achieved by Targeted (struggling) Students (two year):
Student #1: +31
Student #2: +16
Student #3: +29

National Normative Data
Link: http://www.nwea.org/sites/www.nwea.org/files/resources/2011_Normative_Data_Overview.pd
f

Commentary: The classroom represented by this data is a Singapore Math classroom. The students have
been instructed with Singapore Math for two years. Primary instructional materials were Singapore
Math 5A and 5B. Supplementary materials were drawn from Singapore Math Intensive Practice (5A
and 5B), Singapore Math Extra Practice Grade 5, Challenging Word Problems Grade 5,
and Teacher Designed Geometry and Probability Extensions. Total instructional time for this growth
over two years is 72-74 instructional weeks (60-75 minutes per day).

These students (on average) exceeded the RIT Score Growth Expectation by 21.84 points.

Singapore Math is used in schools nationally and internationally (including Sidwell Friends
School, which President Obamas children attend):
http://www.sidwell.edu/news/article/index.aspx?LinkId=21881&ModuleId=427)
St. Josephs K-8 School in Seattle conducted a three-year study and pilot of math curricular
materials and chose Math in Focus in 2012. Below is the description of Math in Focus in the St.
Josephs school overview.
Mathematics - Math in Focus is our new math program. It is based on the Common Core State
Standards, which have identified big ideas at each grade level. The key elements are number,
operations and algebraic thinking. Measurement, data, and geometry are also important
application of the foundational number and algebra concepts. The Standards for Mathematical
Practice are integrated within the content through activities, explorations, practice and
meaningful discussion. Common Core State Standards correlations are provided for each

chapter. Math in Focus helps students build solid conceptual understanding through a focus on
problem solving. The strategic, articulated sequence of topics are developed in depth to mastery
following the Singapore Mathematics Problem Solving Framework. Students learn the why
and the how through instruction, hands-on activities, and problem solving.
Source: http://www.stjosephsea.org/courses-descriptions/

XII. TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION / COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

Timeline to be provided by staff.

XIII. ATTACHMENTS

A. Community Feedback and Comments for Math in Focus and enVision

B. Comparing the Common Core State Standards and Singapores Mathematics Syllabus
Achieve

C. Common Core and Singapore Math U.S. News & World Report

D. Making Math Lessons as Easy as 1, Pause, 2, Pause N.Y Times

E. Mathematics Sidwell Friends School

F. Benchmarking Data from Highline and Shoreline School Districts 2011-12, 2013

G. Board Director Statements from May 21, 2014 Board meeting