Summary:
- School budget concerns
- A Presentation That Raises More Questions Than Answers
- Resources Are Not the Same as Results
- Why should public education be held to a lower standard of accountability?
- The question is not how much a school district spends. It is whether that spending is helping students succeed
- Email to the school board
Seabrook’s elementary and middle schools, part of SAU 21 in New Hampshire, face serious concerns involving bullying, the delivery of special education services, and persistently low proficiency scores in math and English. These issues deserve more than explanations and promises of improvement. They demand accountability, transparency, and a hard look at how the district uses its resources.
One of my biggest concerns about rising school budgets is the growing number of administrative positions, particularly Curriculum Coordinators. Why have districts added another layer of administration to responsibilities teachers have traditionally carried out?
In the past, teachers could pilot instructional programs in their classrooms, gather parent feedback, evaluate materials, and present recommendations to the School Board. This approach put curriculum decisions closer to the educators who understood their students and would ultimately teach the material.
It also created a more direct line of accountability. If students were struggling, the board could ask the teachers who selected and used the curriculum what was going wrong, what they had learned from the experience, and what changes they recommended.
Today, additional administrative layers can separate decision-makers from the classrooms where those decisions’ consequences are felt. In Seabrook, it is reasonable to ask whether the district is using its teachers’ expertise well—and whether the added administrative costs produce measurable improvements in student achievement.
A Presentation That Raises More Questions Than Answers
HERE is a link to the presentation Seabrook’s Curriculum Coordinators delivered to the School Board, addressing persistently low math and English proficiency scores.
After watching the presentation, I had several questions. Were the curriculum choices themselves adequately evaluated? What independent evidence supports the effectiveness of the programs being used? What are teachers reporting about the curriculum and instructional practices? And where is the detailed analysis showing why students keep struggling and how the proposed interventions will address the underlying causes?
These are not minor questions. When proficiency remains low year after year, the public deserves a thorough, evidence-based assessment—not simply a list of possible contributing factors and proposed solutions.
Below is the email I sent to the School Board, Superintendent, and others involved in public education in New Hampshire. It outlines my concerns and the questions I believe deserve substantive answers.
Resources Are Not the Same as Results
The larger issue extends beyond curriculum. It concerns whether school districts allocate resources effectively and hold decision-makers accountable for results.
School budgets can grow, administrative positions can multiply, and presentations can be delivered, but none of those things necessarily translate into better outcomes for students.
The Seabrook presentation raises legitimate questions about the value the district’s curriculum leadership delivers. In the private sector, a presentation that fails to identify the causes of a persistent performance problem, substantiate its conclusions, and establish a credible plan for improvement would invite serious scrutiny from management. At some companies, that level of performance could put people’s jobs at risk.
Why should public education be held to a lower standard of accountability?
This is not about blaming individuals without examining the facts. It is about expecting professionals entrusted with public funds and student outcomes to provide rigorous analysis, demonstrate the value of their work, and take responsibility for improvement.
Seabrook taxpayers deserve to know whether their money is being spent where it can make the greatest difference. Could some of the resources devoted to administration produce better results if invested in math tutoring, direct classroom support, or services for struggling students?
Most importantly, Seabrook’s students deserve answers. If proficiency remains low, the district must identify why, evaluate its assumptions, and demonstrate that its corrective actions are working.
The question is not how much a school district spends. It is whether that spending is helping students succeed.
===================================================================================
Dear Seabrook School Board Members,
I am following up on my previous email regarding Seabrook’s math proficiency scores (included below). Several parents sent me the link to the recent School Board presentation and asked me to review it. Having watched the presentation, I remain concerned that the underlying causes of Seabrook students’ low math proficiency have not been adequately identified and that the proposed action steps may not address the actual problems.
One board member raised important questions about how Eureka Math² compares with the math programs used in other SAU 21 schools. Unfortunately, those questions did not appear to receive the thorough consideration they deserved. Curriculum effectiveness and instructional practices should be central to any evidence-based investigation of persistently low academic performance.
1. Where is the independent research supporting Eureka Math²?
During the presentation, Eureka Math² was described as “well researched.” However, as I explained in my previous email, the research I reviewed did not demonstrate significant positive outcomes in the qualifying studies. In addition, why were none of the fatal flaws in this program identified, and addressed during this presentation?
Where is the independent, peer-reviewed research demonstrating this program’s effectiveness, particularly for schools experiencing persistently low math proficiency? The board should have access to the supporting research, including independent evaluations, student outcome data, and credible findings that raise concerns about the program.
I also previously shared information about potential weaknesses in Eureka Math². Why were these concerns not meaningfully addressed? Has the district independently evaluated them, and what evidence demonstrates that the curriculum is appropriate and effective for Seabrook students?
I raised these issues to encourage a serious evaluation of the factors contributing to low proficiency. I have yet to receive substantive answers or supporting evidence from the board or administration. A curriculum should not be exempt from critical evaluation simply because it has already been adopted.
2. Where is the analysis of instructional practices and teacher feedback?
The presentation referenced addressing mathematical practices and language, but I did not hear a sufficiently detailed analysis of the instructional methods currently being used or their effectiveness.
What are teachers reporting about Eureka Math²? What challenges are they experiencing, and do they believe the curriculum provides adequate explanations, practice, and opportunities for students to master concepts? Are they able to deliver the material effectively within the allotted instructional time?
Teachers work directly with students and the curriculum every day. Their feedback should be systematically collected and included in any serious investigation into low achievement. Curriculum quality, instructional practices, and implementation must all be evaluated rather than assuming that changes to instruction alone will resolve the problem.
Teachers who participate in the Science of Math have suggested supplementing math programs that lack adequate mastery of math facts. Many have suggested implementing Facts on Fire for fact fluency. But this topic was never brought up during the presentation, and remains one of the biggest problems facing math education in our country. No diagnostic information was presented letting the board members know if students were reaching mastery and fluency.
3. Why is instructional time only now being addressed?
The presentation identified a need for approximately 60 minutes of math instruction rather than the 47 minutes currently allocated. If the curriculum requires more time than students are receiving, why was this discrepancy not identified and addressed sooner?
Has the limited instructional time affected curriculum pacing, opportunities for practice, or students’ ability to master concepts before moving forward? The district should be able to demonstrate whether the required material is being taught adequately and whether students have sufficient time to learn it.
4. Where is the evidence supporting attendance and other contributing factors?
Attendance was identified as a possible factor, but the presentation did not provide enough detail to determine its impact.
What percentage of students are chronically absent? How does absenteeism correlate with math proficiency, and to what extent can it reasonably explain the low scores?
Attendance and other factors may contribute to the problem, but they should not be used as explanations without supporting data. The board needs a clear picture of the specific learning gaps and the factors most strongly associated with them.
5. Where is the comprehensive diagnostic analysis?
Two Curriculum Coordinators and district administrators presented information to the board, yet I did not come away with a clear understanding of why Seabrook students continue to struggle or how the proposed interventions directly address the causes.
Before implementing changes, the district should conduct a thorough, evidence-based analysis that includes:
*Independent research on Eureka Math² and comparisons with curricula used in other SAU 21 schools, including relevant student outcome data.
*Teacher feedback and an evaluation of instructional practices and curriculum implementation.
*An assessment of instructional time, curriculum pacing, and opportunities for mastery.
*Detailed attendance data and other relevant student-level factors.
*Student performance by grade and mathematical domain to identify specific learning gaps.
*Measurable action steps, timelines, and benchmarks to evaluate whether the interventions are working.
*Identify the pedagogy that has been used, and what will be used going forward.
Increasing instructional time, addressing mathematical language, and adjusting teaching practices may help. However, these actions should follow a careful diagnosis of the problem, not substitute for one.
I remain concerned that the curriculum itself—and the instructional approach associated with it (pedagogy)—did not receive the scrutiny warranted by the results. The district must be willing to examine whether the program is effective, whether implementation is contributing to the problem, and whether other approaches would better serve Seabrook students.
6. Administrative accountability, teacher input, and budget priorities
This situation also raises questions about the district’s administrative structure and the role of Curriculum Coordinators in curriculum selection and evaluation.
In the past, teachers often played a more direct role in evaluating and piloting instructional programs, gathering parental feedback, and presenting recommendations to the board. Their professional judgment and firsthand classroom experience should remain central to curriculum decisions.
After watching this presentation, I question whether the district’s current curriculum leadership is providing the level of research, analysis, and accountability these positions should deliver. Specialized administrative roles should demonstrate measurable value through better instructional support and improved student outcomes.
As the board reviews the budget, I encourage members to consider whether resources devoted to curriculum administration are producing sufficient benefits—or whether some of those funds would be better invested in additional math tutoring, targeted interventions, and direct classroom support.
Taxpayers and parents deserve accountability and the responsible use of taxpayer funds. The priority must be student learning, not the preservation of administrative structures.
Conclusion: Seabrook students deserve better
I am concerned that the district may move into another school year with interventions that have not been clearly connected to the underlying causes of low math proficiency. Seabrook needs more than a list of possible contributing factors and a collection of proposed solutions. It needs a rigorous, transparent investigation that identifies the problems and establishes why the recommended actions are likely to improve student outcomes.
I believe Seabrook’s teachers could provide valuable insight into these issues. Their feedback, combined with independent research and a detailed analysis of student performance, should help the district determine what is going wrong and how to correct it.
The School Board and community deserve clear answers, measurable accountability, and a plan grounded in evidence. SAU 21 taxpayers also deserve to know whether current administrative expenditures are producing meaningful results and whether alternative investments would better support student achievement.
Seabrook students cannot afford another year of hoping that a collection of interventions will work. The district must identify the causes of the problem, explain the evidence supporting its conclusions, and demonstrate how its actions will lead to improved math proficiency.
I look forward to a substantive response to these concerns.
Sincerely,
Ann Marie Banfield
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES TO REVIEW:
The Final Four: Detailed Reviews (Review of Eureka2 math included: Fatal Flaws)
Sold a Story 2: What Happened to Teaching?
