On behalf of many parents in Seabrook, I am writing to encourage the Joint School Board in SAU21 to begin demanding better outcomes for the students served in this district.
In the past, I worked with a Seabrook parent whose child required additional support. Ultimately, that parent removed her child from the Seabrook school system because the services being provided were inadequate. Now it appears the New Hampshire Department of Education has identified a systemic problem. A recent state audit found that dozens of students were not receiving all of the services required under their Individualized Education Programs (IEPs).
One question that deserves immediate attention is how many students currently require additional academic support because the core instructional program itself is weak—particularly in mathematics.
The Eureka math program is widely viewed as ineffective. While North Hampton’s program appears somewhat stronger, there are significantly better options available. Evidence-based resources already exist to evaluate curriculum quality. The Evidence for ESSA database categorizes instructional programs based on the strength of the research supporting them—strong, moderate, or promising.
For example:
• Bridges in Mathematics, used in North Hampton, is rated “moderate.”
• Math in Focus, based on Singapore Math, is rated “strong.”
• Eureka Math used in Seabrook shows no significant positive outcomes in qualifying studies.
If students are being asked to learn mathematics through a program that lacks strong evidence of effectiveness, we should not be surprised when many of them struggle.
I brought the problems with Eueka2 to the Seabrook school board, and highlighted the numerous issues I found within this program. Eureka2 incorporates Social and Emotional Learning into the online program. This may be a great way for the vendor to capture mental health and behavior data on students, but that doesn’t help them learn how to add and subtract.
Eureka2 markets their product as “guided inquiry” to learning mathematics but even the AFT highlighted a study showing that fully guided instruction is superior to partially guided instruction. (See page 7: Research comparing fully guided and partially guided instruction) Not only is there a problem with the Eureka curriculum itself, the pedagogy is also flawed.
This situation is comparable to feeding children unhealthy food every day and then acting surprised when health problems develop. When a curriculum fails to deliver strong academic results, students naturally fall behind. Parents then seek additional supports—sometimes through IEPs or 504 plans—when the underlying issue may be the instructional program itself.
Parents frequently report improvements when their children leave these classrooms for private schools or homeschooling environments because they use stronger math programs, and teachers are valued and supported as instructors. Many of the academic struggles that once required special education supports begin to diminish.
This raises an important policy question: are some students being placed into special education services because the instructional program is failing to meet their needs?
This matters not only for students but also for the district’s budget. When more students require specialized services, the cost of special education rises significantly. At the same time, students who truly need these services must share limited resources with others who might have succeeded if the core curriculum were stronger, and direct instruction replaced inquiry learning.
At the last Seabrook School Board meeting, several ideas were discussed, but no clear analysis was presented regarding how curriculum quality and pedagogy may be affecting student outcomes. That is an area where the board should insist on greater transparency and data.
Parents deserve to know:
• Which programs and what pedagogy are being used
• What evidence supports their effectiveness
• How student outcomes compare to districts using stronger curricula and direct instruction
Many students who have used school choice options have shared their experiences publicly. Some report that once they entered schools with stronger academic programs where teachers teach quality academic content, they no longer required the same level of support services.
As a parent advocate in New Hampshire, it is difficult to recommend Seabrook schools when concerns about curriculum quality remain unresolved. These students and teachers deserve better than a system that sets them up to struggle from the start. I personally wouldn’t enroll my children in Seabrook knowing the math program used is Eureka2.
The community has already faced years of concerns about bullying, and low proficiency scores. Now the state has identified additional problems involving the delivery of required student services. These issues cannot simply be ignored.
School board members are elected to represent the taxpayers and families in their communities. That responsibility includes asking difficult questions and holding the administration accountable when necessary.
Finally, it is worth noting that SAU 21 employs a full-time Curriculum Coordinator. In the past, decisions about instructional programs were typically made collaboratively by teachers, school administrators, and the school board. During those processes, parents were sometimes invited to weigh in when new math programs were being piloted in their children’s schools.
Today, however, the SAU pays a six-figure salary for a Curriculum Coordinator, while the individual schools share another coordinator. That raises an important question: what exactly is the district receiving in return? Is this expensive addition to our budgets worth the money when our schools are not using the best available math programs?
If the result is the adoption of a math program that many parents view as ineffective, then the process itself deserves closer scrutiny. Classroom teachers work directly with students every day and understand what helps children learn and what does not. Their professional judgment should carry significant weight in these decisions.
We all want strong public schools in SAU 21. Supporting those schools begins with ensuring that the instructional programs we use are effective and that every student receives the services they are entitled to.
Thank you for your service to the community–
Ann Marie Banfield
TRUST REQUIRES TRANSPARENCY
Attachments area
Sign up and turn your connections into cash—join our affiliate program!