Principal 1

I realize that it is now after 5:00 pm, but I thought I would still send some feedback. I did take the 3 question survey
yesterday, so you did get those responses on time. I have many thoughts about the math adoption and the process and
I waited a bit to respond so that I could think about what is most salient rather than just spew. So, here goes
In a nutshell, this adoption is about students and their learning. And I am beginning to feel that it is the students who
are becoming more and more lost in this process. We are selecting a new curriculum because we want more for our
young mathematical minds. In the end, we are going to support mathematicians by having strong teachers in the
classroom. No single program is going to be the answer. Our efforts need to be directed toward equipping each teacher
to develop their content knowledge and expertise so that they can support our students. Diverting our energies by
asking individual buildings to do the work that a very qualified and educated committee has already accomplished will
not prepare teachers nor will it provide instructional materials for students. It will simply cause an unnecessary delay in
focusing our attention on students, on our instruction, on our assessments, and the classroom-level decisions we are
making each day. (I also believe it is a redundant and irresponsible use of taxpayer dollars.) I would like to enter the
2014-2015 school year with the knowledge that my students will be supported in their mathematical learning because
our district and our school board has supported our teachers in their mathematical instruction. Our school has worked
diligently to be attentive to this process, to communicate with our families, and to trust that a sound program would be
selected with the expectation that we would move forward as a district. I feel strongly that our efforts next year must
be focused on the work happening inside the classroom each day and not on discussion outside of the classroom about
what we could be selecting for the following year. I urge the school board to honor the work of the committee that was
selected to represent all Seattle students and to do so quickly so that our staff will be ready to welcome those students
on September 3.
Principal 2
I would like to strongly protest the suggestion to accept a dual math curriculum adoption.
Many teachers spent many hours away from their classrooms, diligently poring over curriculum materials. They made
their very best recommendation in good faith that their opinions would be respected. This suggestion seems completely
disrespectful to these professional educators.
Careful analysis was done regarding the percentage of materials relevance and synchronicity to the Common Core State
Standards. Math in Focus only covered 57% of the major work of the CCSS, compared to 80-90% for EnVision. How is
that appropriate? It requires that teachers will have to do even more of their own curriculum research and design.
I have worked in several Seattle schools, and in each one, a different math curriculum has been used. There has been no
consistency or commonality. A dual adoption will absolutely perpetuate this issue.
Please do NOT consider a dual adoption. Please do NOT allow wavers. Please follow the recommendation of the
curriculum committee.
Teachers will not be willing to give their input or cooperation in the future if they know they will ignored or over-ruled.
Principal 3
Just an FYI.if schools that opt for Math in Focus get 8 days of PD for math instruction, I will be asking for the same for
schools using enVision. 8 full days of focused math PD is going to give those schools a huge advantage over those of us
using enVision. I suspect the 8 days of MIF will be about strengthening overall math instruction. All schools should
then be offered that same level of support.
Principal 4
What a pandoras box!!!!