With MVP Year 2 in the Books in WCPSS - What Now?

Recap and Level Set

WCPSS curriculum administrators have successfully run out the clock on Year 2 of its MVP implementation.  Faced with February 20, 2019, news coverage and a throng of parents from Green Hope High School - and a few other schools with news-watching parents who showed up unexpectedly - leaders from Crossroads One put on a one-directional information session hoping to assuage parents chomping at the bit for answers about why their smart math students suddenly could no longer do their homework or pass a test.  

Since that meeting and through today, crisis management and narrative control has been the game plan.  Little substantive change has been made as WCPSS leadership doubled down on MVP, blaming teachers for implementation inconsistencies, students for not working hard enough, or parents for not understanding the need for the 21st Century critical thinking skills MVP promised to deliver.

Despite numerous reports provided by me and others about unimpressive or declining math scores in every single MVP reference we’ve located and investigated (examples: Alpine, Wake #1, Wake #2, Wake #3, Berkeley, Chapel Hill, and Modesto), and numerous passionate 3-minute parent speeches at Board of Education meetings, there has not been one single admission that the curriculum concept itself could possibly be at fault or have systemic weaknesses.  And not one single research- or evidence-based defense of the program has been presented, other than claiming a mastery of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) 8 principles of math education. Granted, WCPSS admits there are some errors and typos in the workbooks, which some lucky teachers will be rewarded with summer employment to help correct. But other than that, there’s nothing wrong that a few bits of grade adjustments or additional teacher professional development can’t fix.

Highlight of the past 3 months: As a result of my analysis and debunking reports, having WCPSS contact MVP, LLC, and ask them to remove the tweet which falsely advertised MVP’s year 1 “successes” in Wake County.  Side benefit: MVP also removed the false Facebook advertisement about Chapel Hill’s successes. While neither of those will do any failing student in Wake County any good, it may possibly reduce the rapid spread of the MVP fever that seems to be catching across NC as other schools have or are considering adoption (Charlotte-Mecklenburg, Guilford County, Johnston County, Transylvania County, to name a few).  

In April, approximately 20 parents from approximately 9 different schools filed formal complaints citing material objections related to MVP as it relates to ten NC or WCPSS policy violations.    After seemingly consulting their attorney(s), WCPSS promised a response to all on June 7, along with every other pending and additional public records requests since then. Since then, they’ve pretty much gone radio silent.  Tick. Tick. Tick.

I’m tempering my optimism AND pessimism about what might come from the June 7 response. Regardless, parents can either accept the results or appeal. So we’ll cross that bridge when we get to it.

If Only They Would Have Done This (or, It's Not Too Late to Do This!)

So here’s what WCPSS SHOULD have been doing in light of the MVP complaints that are more than a few isolated experiences:  

1. Decide whether current semester grades matter, and if they don’t, then state that and defend it.  

What this means is the following: One of the premises of MVP is that students will gain 21st Century critical thinking and math understanding skills, because the “old math” ways of “rote” memorization and teacher “lecturing from the chalkboard” are not working.  The implications are that the improvements promised by MVP may not manifest themselves until much later in high school or college, because it takes several years for the kinks to be worked out of a new curriculum. Therefore, if too much emphasis is placed on current semester grades, then we (parents) are being short-sighted and not seeing the long term play of MVP.  If current grades don’t matter, and a 3 letter grade drop should be expected for some students, then WCPSS needs to state those expectations clearly and strongly, AND provide evidence and research which will assure parents their students low grades now will be replaced with greater successes in school and career later.

2. If current grades DO matter and ARE a measure of tactical program success, then earnestly look at the data at a detailed level NOW.  

MVP is a radical change in the way teachers teach.  Picture a spectrum where, on one end, you have a teacher who is the perfect MVP implementer.  They are following MVP guidelines and scripts as precisely as the creator of MVP himself, regardless of whether this is their natural teaching style or not.  They may have to stifle some of their own creativity in order to follow the rigidity of MVP. They are implementing “with fidelity” and “being true to the curriculum” as described by WCPSS curriculum leaders to MVP teachers.  



On the other end of the spectrum is the teacher who is not using MVP as prescribed.  This teacher may be very creative and like to deliver math to their class using a variety of methods and styles, which may or may not include group work and facilitation.

In between freedom and fidelity sit probably the majority of teachers in WCPSS. They saw some potential with MVP and have tried it, but are seeing their students failing to grasp the math. So they are supplementing. They may still be using MVP some, but they are flying under the radar of the "MVP Police" at WCPSS who promise to reprimand teachers not following the program strictly.

I believe the implementation disparities across the county have lead to the results we have been seeing.  Where there are pockets of problems, we find strict implementation fidelity. Where there are happy students making A’s and B's in math like always, we find teachers who are teaching “under the radar” and not using MVP strictly.  They are supplementing, answering questions, and skipping many of the MVP tasks.

WCPSS needs to understand the correlation between performance results and MVP implementation fidelity.  I believe this can best be done by looking at grades first and testing two hypotheses:

1. Desirable results are correlated with implementing MVP with fidelity (one end of the spectrum)
2. Undesirable results are correlated with not implementing MVP or implementing MVP with low fidelity (other end of spectrum)

I will define desirable and undesirable results below.  

These are complementary hypotheses.  And they both are testing the opposite of what I believe to be the case due to the many anecdotes I hear about.  But this is what WCPSS wants to believe, and so they should test it and prove it to themselves and the public.

Here’s how I would do this.  Don’t wait for EOGs or EOCs. First of all, those results are produced annually and are not publicly available until around November for the prior school year.  Recently, those tests seem to be less useful for year to year comparisons of the publicly available NC DPI data due to the changes. For example, the numbers published by NC DPI for 2017 and 2018 Math 1 results had to be massaged with a non-published WCPSS algorithm in order to produce numbers to compare MVP year one results.  Additionally, NC is changing assessments again this year, which includes Math 1 and Math 3. Furthermore, it is not clear to me if Math 2 is part of any standardized test this year. Even if our standardized tests were perfect measures, the point is that we can’t wait for an annual checkup on whether MVP is working or not. There are enough students with significant problems NOW that demand a more timely micro-analysis of possible systematic issues.

Therefore, WCPSS should look at student by student performance mid-course on a regular basis and compare to prior math course grades.  They have this data collectively because parents individually have this data in PowerSchool.  

Take my son for example.  Prior to Math 2 Honors, his final grades were 78 (Math 7), 92 (Math 8), and 93 (Math 1).  If you weight those 15%, 35%, 50% (I made up this weighting because it makes sense), his recent math weighted average (RMWA) was 90.4.  Going into Math 2 Honors was a stretch for him, but his confidence in Math was rising, so we went for it. I would have expected him to possibly make a low B in Math 2 Honors or maybe a high C, given his recent math successes and the extra challenge of an honors course.  But no. He encountered a teacher who strictly followed MVP “with fidelity” and was “true to the curriculum.” Luke’s averages for his first 5 quizzes and tests were 57.8 and 60.6, which represented a 3.3 and 3.0 letter grade drop from his RMWA of 90.4! This is a HUGE decline and believe me, it raised red flags for us well before the 5th quiz or test.  This is a similar theme I’ve heard from other parents - multiple letter grade drops.

Desirable vs Undesirable Results

WCPSS should do this analysis throughout the semester.  In classes where there are numerous students who are falling more than 1.5 letter grades from their recent math course grades, a red flag (undesirable result) should be raised.  Likewise, in classes where a large majority of students are within +/- 0.5 letter grades of recent performance, a green flag (desirable result) should be raised. IN BOTH CASES, WCPSS should interview those students to understand how the teacher teachers class. Perhaps this could be done with a survey which checks criteria for "implementation fidelity" that MVP and WCPSS are expecting of teachers. For example, does the teacher start each class with a task, or does the teacher explain the math first? Does the teacher answer a question with a question and will they eventually given an answer? Does the teacher demonstrate one best practice example of how to do today's math problems? Do you feel equipped to do your homework at the end of class? Simply observing the teacher is not enough, because teachers know how to perform when someone is watching.

Obviously, when implementing this analysis, WCPSS’s data scientists should decide how to tweak those criteria to isolate what would best constitute desirable and undesirable performance.  I would have liked to think that this criteria existed already. I would have thought that if a school system saw clusters of students suddenly dropping 3+ letter grades, they would have proactively investigated this, but I am not aware of this happening.

Now, the other factors that have to be considered are the extenuating circumstances.  Are the grades being adjusted or fluffed with multiple mastery opportunities or group-testing?  How much tutoring is used by the students? Are there changes to the students which would explain the performance?

This analysis is how WCPSS can judge the magnitude of what we parents are seeing and hearing from others, OR if 20 students in all of Wake County are truly the only ones with isolated MVP problems.  

In other words, is the 2-part hypothesis true or false?

If the hypotheses are true, then the fix might be more professional development for teachers where there are MVP problems.  But data from the ground-zero home of MVP, American Fork Junior High School would indicate that the hypotheses are false.

So if current grades do matter, and there is a systemic problem correlating to MVP implementation fidelity, then...

3. It’s time to face facts AND common sense and cut bait.  

The facts are based on the analysis done above plus the empirical evidence from other districts that are 3+ years into MVP with no improvements to show.  Examples noted above in introduction.

The common sense part is this: Before WCPSS went to block scheduling, students spent about 160 hours per year in math class (6 periods in one day all year long).  With block scheduling, this time is reduced to about 120 hours per semester for a math class (4 periods in one day each semester). So effectively, the change to block scheduling was a reduction by 25% in class time for a course.  

With MVP, class time is spent doing the MVP task-based activities.  No one argues that some of the MVP problems are good ones that should be understood and worked by students.  But, how much time should be spent - in cacophonous group work - “grappling” with a problem BEFORE learning the fundamental math required to ultimately solve the problem, waiting for the 0-2 strong kids in the group to partially figure it out, while the other 2-4 students wait?  One third of class time (40 hours per course)? One half (60 hours per course)?

When we take yet another portion of precious math class time and devote it to an activity that may or may not yield benefit for only some of the students, logic would indicate that is not a good decision.  Every student. Every day. Ask your child about their MVP math class experience, and you'll hear that some students - they are humans after all - get engaged more than others. It's just the way life is. The teacher cannot individually play the information hide & seek math facilitation game with 30-35 students to ensure every student every day "gets it." It's just not possible.

Every minute counts when we’ve already cut math course time by 40 hours.  With only 120 hours in class pre-MVP allotted for teachers to teach the material the best way they know how, how can turning over even a small portion of that time to a student-led “grappling” and “discovery” exercise be of benefit to all students?  It can’t.  

The sooner WCPSS and others cross that bridge and admit it, the better.  Cut bait. What does it look like to cut bait? I see there are 2 options:

1. Allow teachers the flexibility to use MVP problems and tasks as they deem appropriate, OR
2. Drop MVP completely and pursue another curriculum

Regardless of which option, WCPSS math teachers need curriculum resources to teach.  I, and others, believe there is a win-win opportunity here as described next.

4. Develop WCPSS teacher-authored curriculum resources.  

By my estimation, WCPSS must have 400-600 math teachers teaching MVP.  Every school and every teacher had curriculum resources they used to teach Math 1 - 2 - 3 before MVP.  Those resources are still available on Google drives or on teacher laptops.  So the resources for an excellent perfectly-matched-to-standards curriculum exist in aggregate across the county.  With some level of adult coordination, WCPSS could invest money otherwise spent on MVP training and invest in making robust system-wide curriculum resources.

This investment could be in the form of tooling (software) or labor (paying teachers extra to contribute to curriculum resource bank).  Proper project management and tooling could result in:

• A database of high quality class lessons which map to state standards and made available to students (and parents) for use after class
• A math problem bank (some with and some without worked examples) which could be used by teachers or students for class work, homework, quizzes, and tests.  
• Problems could be mapped to lessons (which are mapped to standards). 
• Problems could be rated for difficulty which would allow teachers to build assignments and assessments appropriate for scaffolding. 
• This could include MVP problems which are utilized during the appropriate time at the teacher’s discretion.
• Continued refinement year after year.
• Teachers who have contributed to the project can be rewarded with recognition and/or additional pay, depending on contribution.
• Teachers could use their own creativity to deliver material using methods best suited for their style and students’ needs.

Why is this so difficult to envision?  

Again, we’re more than halfway there because this solution already exists in aggregate across the county.  We just need to apply a level of organization to it. This would result in a tailored solution that is on the mark with state standards AND teacher buy-in would be high AND teacher satisfaction could be improved.  The results:

• Truly high quality resources not riddled with errors an d confusion like MVP materials
• Better performing students
• Increased teacher satisfaction
• ALL teachers have access to ALL resource for ALL students
• Problem difficulty ratings ensures ALL students are met where they are and can be challenged to go higher
• Assessments will be fair because they will only contain problems within realm of what is expected
• Parents will have resources (notes + examples) to help students if needed

In conclusion, I implore our WCPSS leaders, including board members, to set aside their hashtags and preconceived biases favoring MVP as the solution to achieving mathematics utopia, AND LOOK AT THE FACTS and USE COMMON SENSE about what is happening. If the response to the material objection does not indicate that substantive change is coming regarding MVP, I will expect to see protest escalate this fall as a new batch of students enter Math 1 at all schools, and Math 3 at the schools completing the rollout.