Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Math Curriculum topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Concord committee launches multi‑year math review, flags gaps and calls for dedicated math specialist
Summary
A district math self‑study focused on preK–8 identified subgroup achievement gaps and recommended new diagnostic screeners, a stand‑alone math specialist, and a multi‑year curriculum process; committee members noted budget implications and suggested interim supports such as bus‑time tutoring pilots.
Shelley, lead of the district math review committee, told the Concord School Committee on May 20 that a newly formed, cross‑district team has begun a multi‑phase study of math instruction across preK–12 and will concentrate on preK–8 for the current cycle. The review draws on MCAS and internal STAR data and seeks diagnostic tools to identify specific skill deficits so targeted interventions can follow.
The committee’s early work, Shelley said, focused on building a shared instructional vision and documenting strengths and gaps. "We had over 20 educators and administrators" engaged in the self‑study, she said, and the team mapped achievement by subgroup to see where students were not meeting grade‑level expectations. The materials shown to the committee included subgroup breakdowns and a summary of students who scored below the MCAS 'partially meeting' threshold.
Why it matters: committee members said the math findings intersect with curriculum, staffing and budget decisions. Chair Laurie and other members emphasized that, unlike reading interventions already in place, math lacks consistent, district‑wide diagnostic screens and dedicated intervention capacity. "We need a stand alone math specialist," Laurie said, arguing that assistant principals carrying dual roles cannot sustainably provide the coaching, data analysis and intervention oversight required.
Shelley and others recommended piloting newer early‑math screeners (analogous to DIBELS for reading), expanding assessment infrastructure so teachers can target remediation precisely, and aligning 'power standards' so instruction and interventions focus on the most critical grade‑level skills. She described Everyday Math as “not in that [high‑quality] category anymore,” and the committee said curriculum adoption would likely be a later, multi‑year phase that requires careful sequencing to avoid overwhelming elementary teachers.
Several members also floated lower‑cost or interim strategies while the longer work proceeds. Michelle suggested exploring structured homework or small‑group support during long METCO bus rides; Michael and others noted similar past experiments with quiet or structured bus time and encouraged piloting equitable approaches that could serve low‑income and METCO students as well as others.
Budget and timing: district leaders and committee members agreed the plan has budget implications. Shelley said the committee’s recommendations will inform future budget requests, including the case for dedicated intervention staff. The committee plans progress updates next year as the multi‑year review moves from needs assessment toward recommendations and, eventually, curriculum decisions.
What’s next: the math review team will continue meetings next year to refine priorities, pilot diagnostic tools in elementary grades and produce interim updates for the committee and budget planners.
