Thread by @eugeniaschraa

Ok, everyone! Let's tweet about the #cambma School Committee's ALGEBRA discussion.

Holy crap! This meeting went *6.5 hours*!!


(See my tweets on the SCHEDULES discussion here: https://t.co/nMqfW8yp6N)…lect-video-ondemand-cpsd.cablecast.tv/CablecastPubli…

https://twitter.com/eugeniaschraa/status/1689031976630558720

Starts 3:49 — "Pathway to 8th grade Algebra FOR ALL" they call it.

Head of Math Mulligan mentions she's calling in from vacation.

So, all 8th graders will take Algebra I in 8th grade 3 years from this Fall.

"We're going to show the data because School Committee members have asked to see the data."

Ok. Pretty basic, but yes, good.

Note on screenshot above - it says they presented the initial plan in June '23 — mistake? They presented in May. Was there *another* plan?

"The intention is to have community engagement and conversations throughout the year + at the end, to be reflective with community engagement, data analysis and a co-design process - what support plans look like."

Again, basic, but good to see it.

What is a "Co-design process"?

"Transparently, I know there are implications about bringing some 7th grade content to 6th grade around elementary schools.

"Right now I can say that our work around the new curriculum and training for teachers will help prepare students."

[So interpreting that above, I think she's saying that elementary math is not good enough right now for this, but she thinks it's about to improve?]

Oh man. Excuses about how this was her first year in this role. 😞 I'm not a fan of how often we hear this from all the new CPS leaders. Keep it to yourself!

Ok, maybe you think I'm petty - but this chart (which seems not *super* relevant, but fine) shows ...

... the timeline above shows that the math presentation was indeed in May. So it seems like that the screenshot above with the 3-year timeline has an error in it.

And maybe that's minor, but it's confusing + I think they could have checked their work before presenting.

OK. This chart is all about her research on math policy - looking up Day articles + going through SC archives.

... Maybe *not* where I'd have spent that time. Which kids are performing at what levels? What do teachers say? How are teachers performing? Where are kids ...

... behind? Where are they ahead? How many go to Russian School of Math (or other)? What reasons do they give for going there?

I could be wrong, but this is the type research I wish I was learning she'd engaged in for all this time.

Please, tell me if I'm missing something?

"The value of Algebra I in this community." As though Cambridge has a specific take on Algebra that's like a unique cultural quirk.

Such a bizarre framing.

How about: Cambridge kids should graduate ready for STEM careers? Simple. No need for armchair anthropology.

"In July, some misunderstandings were circulating about the math curriculum. Personally, to feel that folks were misunderstanding our plan out of this department, saddened me."

This seems to be referring to the news coverage in the Globe and in the CRLS newspaper ...

But, like:
1) You were quoted in both articles!
2) Greer went on GBH and gave her side of the story.
3) CPS COULD — NAY, SHOULD — HAVE WRITTEN A CLEAR UPDATE TO FAMILIES WHEN THESE "MISUNDERSTANDINGS" BEGAN.

What are you complaining about? You have a large, paid Comms Team!

"Content standards were adjusted in 2010 b/c kids need to be exposed to algebraic thinking earlier."

"When folks say there's no Algebra in middle schools, that's wrong. Just no Algebra I."

Hmm ... I don't know that people were really that confused on that point, but fine.

Folks say they feel we're promoting the inequities in the district as families use tutors and private programs (Russian School of Math).

My answer is to give an alternative that's free, open to students and aligned to Algebra I curriculum.

You don't have to take this program —

"Most of this will be online. With a facilitator to facilitate conversations about math. Don't want to sound like a commercial, like I'm promoting it, but I'm proud of it."

But wait, it hasn't started yet, right?
CAMBridge was only a summer program up to now as I understand. [?]

Mentioning a program with Harvard, MIT students. I couldn't quite follow - would be nice to have that in a slide. Lots of big, new ideas here.

Not a lot of data on what's been going on.

I'm interpreting here, but WIN blocks really seem like CPS's answer to bored students who are too advanced for math classes.

This seems really vague and unsatisfying an answer to a big problem that is driving the inequities such as private tutoring, Russian School of Math, etc.

Elementary Math Equity Lab???

What is this? She's talking about how great it was without explaining what it was.

At the slide above "challenges/opportunities" I don't think a single one was clearly explained. I'm lost, anyway.

We're talking about the 2 math motions now.
My quick summary of each is here:

https://twitter.com/realBurhanAzeem/status/1688542462002827264

Member Rojas — worried this plan compresses learning and too little time on certain math concepts.

Asks to explain difference between math in middle school vs. advanced math in high school.

Head of Math response — there's a lot of controversy. But I'm responding to what "the community" has been asking for.

(I put community in quotes b/c not sure that the CPS parent listserve, some reddit commenters + ppl on Twitter really = "the community.")

Would love to see CPS reaching out to their actual community to solicit families' thoughts on their children's math learning. I'd love to see all the views that are currently missing.

"Would students have a solid foundation to reach advanced math with the middle school curriculum as it is — but other schools are moving classes down + I get their rationale: reaching AP Calculus by senior year."

In Cambridge we don't have that dilemma b/c block scheduling ...

"But parents don't want their kids to double up on math" [which is what it takes to get to AP Calculus before you graduate].

"There's also some computer science classes students want to take."

[OK let's talk —

[It seems like students aren't making it to AP Calculus - which is required for almost any STEM major in college. So (1) we need the data on who makes it (2) This is a *major* concern.

[Should have been addressed in detail the presentation.]

Member Rojas is now making the point that it's okay "managing expectations" that not all kids will get to Algebra I in 8th grade.

[I can't follow what this means -- Is it maybe arguing for tracking? Is it saying it's ok some kids are behind? I'm just missing the point.]

Member Rojas — I hear IM (new math curriculum) requires a lot of support and teacher training. Do we have that?

[Good question - should have been addressed in the presentation.]

David Weinstein excited "you highlighted community engagement, data analysis, co-design process."

This is my baseline expectation + don't see that data analysis or community engagement yet

So ... I guess, we're not united in being impressed with that part of the presenation.

"Does the new version of CAMBridge prepare kids to skip Algebra I?"

Ha ha ha! This was *not* in the presentation. Isn't this like the most basic info about the program??

Anyway, she's saying yes + describing the future course more. All needed to be in the slides/presentation

Member D. Weinstein thinks this program he's just learning *basic* info about seems promising.

Whereas I'm very worried if that's the best light we can shed on it seems a touch underbaked. Yikes.

Member Fantini — the IM (new math curriculum) cost us a million bucks.

Mulligan (head of math): That's only k-5 which will be new this fall. 6-8 we had already last school year.

Her answer which I'm tuning out slightly makes me realize how the presentation had no specifics about the curriculum whatsoever — what's actually being taught?

I mean, what concepts? Show us what's taught in these units so we can get a picture.

"96% of middle school teachers have been through the initial training; then a session for new teachers + for anyone who didn't engage. 75% of teachers have engaged in something else."

Again, would be nice to see this in a slide.
[Repeating this idea a lot.]

Member Fantini — right now, can any student take Calculus with our current structure?

Head of math "Yes"

Nobody asking how many kids *actually* make it, though, which seems more salient.

"No placement tests in the high school anymore."
Look at iReady scores, MCAS, teacher rubric, end of year assessments instead.

She doesn't know diversity stats for high school classes but says can get it. (Again ... you know what I'll say .. should have shared earlier.)

Member Fantini — I hear from a lot of parents that their children are in courses + not challenged; just reading during class.

Head of math — better training will be better; sometimes teachers let kids do math like Sodoku. I won't say it's not happening, but I do personally ...

... love the challenges of these math puzzles.

Holy crap. What a bad answer!!!

Hugely upsetting to hear this *major* issue that many, many families & kids have told me about fully dismissed + a joke made about Sudoku.

PUZZLES YOU DO ON THE PLANE FOR FUN DO NO BELONG IN A MATH CLASSROOM!!

WHY IS NOBODY ELSE HORRIFIED TO HEAR THIS.

WHAT IS THIS ALTERNATE REALITY? HELP!

Kind of tuned out b/c so upset about the sodoku thing.

Just heard Member Hunter — "I'd like to see the data on those three years of work."

Ha ha! Missed what this refers to, but right on Member Hunter. 100% with you.

Long history right now on a badly-performing detracked class from a few years ago? I'm struggling to follow b/c this should all be in a table I get understand by looking it over for a minute. Confusing.

Member Ayesha Wilson says that this history I missed shows that the pandemic caused us to pivot from the original plan that was always just like this.

Member Rojas - seems not to like that the idea is to compress 3 years of middle school math into 2 years ...

... now curious about can we compress Algebra II + Pre-Calculus instead?

Oh jeez she tuned out b/c she thought he was presenting a motion. So he's asking the Q again. [agh!]

She says yes you could do that. Yikes, 5 minutes on this exchange. Agh.

Member Rojas says we're not changing our Algebra policy, instead we're talking about strategy. [?]

He's introducing his motion to learn from math experts about the different options we have so students are challenged in math. So if we do change the policy of Algebra I in 9th ...

... 9th grade. (Did he mean 9th grade or 8th grade?)

Ok this is a roundtable idea with some nonprofit math people, coaches, teachers.

Fred Fantini wants to add the IM curriculum people.

Rachel likes the idea, too. She asks the obvious: we haven't been *following* ...

... district policy. So why the emphasis on the policy, which seems to have no substance to it?
(So yes, he mis-spoke - should have said our policy is all take Algebra I in 8th grade.)

Oh good! @Vote_Ayesha wants to add Cambridge Math Circle to the policy order.

I was confused why they were left off. Also why Russian Math is left off — given their popularity, wouldn't they have good insight on all this?

Also, this data should be collected, but there's ...

@Vote_Ayesha ... no clamor that I can tell on getting stats about how many students take these outside classes + why they or their families choose to do so.

That seems *foundational*

I don't get why it's not in the presentation already or being loudly asked for.

@Vote_Ayesha Mayor says Roundtable can be for October at the earliest.

Mayor says "We're not hearing from everyone - only hearing from ppl who are able to participate." Yes!

Also wants data-driven decision-making. Doesn't share what data she wants, but yes, I'm super super with her.

@Vote_Ayesha Oh okay, Rachel is saying her motion is really close to the plan CPS just laid out. The mayor was saying she thought they were in tension.

Now David Weinstein is introducing this motion — we want Algebra I available in school in the school year, and broad outreach ...

@Vote_Ayesha ... not waiting for students to sign up. [I don't get this point.]

He wants an annual review to make sure that in practice it's not creating inequities.

They may revise it to further align w/ what CPS just presented.

@Vote_Ayesha David Weinstein is saying that the new math program should be an iterative process so it's not written in stone.

It must be detracked, that' is central. No definition given of "detracked."

@Vote_Ayesha Rachel says that the alignment with CPS's plan is the result of working with her on it.

As SATs lessen in influence, new standards are kids taking AP Calculus to have a STEM career.

Now, kids with external help are better prepared to do that = equity issue.

@Vote_Ayesha So it seems like we got to fix that w/ giving all kids 8th grade Algebra I.

But trade-off is kids falling behind, not being ready for it, compressing math.

Previously, it was nice to see how different elementary schools "used to" create a dip in 6th grade.

@Vote_Ayesha So I think Rachel is saying that this whole plan hinges on improving elementary school math pretty significantly.

This seems to be a theme tonight. Elementary math is not good enough.

She's also excited about community engagement/data — stuff we've so far not seen. So ... ok.

@Vote_Ayesha Superintendent Greer talking about how much math expertise her executive team has.

... Yes, this would be relevant if they had great outcomes they could point to. If not, hold off on your praise for now. Let's wait till this expertise has resulted in amazing results for kids.

@Vote_Ayesha David Weinstein says the timeline in his motion is for full transition in Fall 2025 - he says that one way to introduce the enrichment opportunities they want is through the new CAMBridge program that's going to be introduced in this school year.

Now Member David is saying he's worried about tracking.

One way - make sure every student takes the same course/same time. That would be a change.

Or - by 2025 we're providing opportunities equitably w/o tracking.

As usual, the "tracking" discussion is ...

... impossible to follow since it's all being described in such vague terms. So, disappointing, given how much hinges on what tracking actually means.

Ayesha Wilson asks what's the point of this motion if it's just the same as the CPS plan.

Member David says it's important to "go on record" and "be clear."

Member Fantini is like, I'm tired, charter right! That means no voting on it tonight - next meeting I think.

Member Rojas thinks that pushing all students to take Algebra I by 8th grade isn't helping those who don't want to go to college or things like that.

If we push for all kids to get Algebra in 8th grade (what I thought he said was policy) then we aren't benefiting all kids ...

Editorial note: WHAT???
I can't follow what he's trying to say. I think he likes it now with Algebra I in 9th grade??? Which is it? Fully confused.

I guess, kids who want to go to college should just figure it out outside of CPS on their own?

WHAT???

Not saying I can completely follow, but I think Members Rachel + David are pushing back on this.

Now Member Hunter: no child should wait while CPS gets its act together — I think she's also pushing back on the Rojas stuff, but again I'm confused.

She says preparing kids ...

... for 8th grade Algebra doesn't mean we're pushing every child to a STEM career. Just an equal opportunity to do so, given we're in the digital age.

YES!

GOOD NEWS! They're doing Consent Agenda stuff + we are done.

I am an exhausted and dismayed puddle at the end of this, but at least we made it through.

@threadreaderapp unroll