z45\doc\web\2000\10\treis.txt "Making Some Sense out of the Puzzle Pieces" by Donna Garner October 14, 2000 New York "Mr. Levy appointed Uri Treisman, head of the Dana Center at the University of Texas, as one of the experts to serve on the math panel. the very people (e.g., Uri Treisman) who have promoted the failed performance-based, fuzzy math philosophy which has caused the New York City students to perform so poorly in the first place. Cites a well-researched report done by Chris Patterson in 1999 where she meticulously traced the NSF/Statewide Systemic Initiative (SSI) from its origin down to Uri Treisman's Dana Center Note from Arthur Hu - this is about as good an overview of any I've seen on how federal money is dangled in front of school districts to adopt controversial math texts that deliberately downplay the importance of memorizing facts and algorithms, or even getting the right answer. Nearly all of these textbooks, as reviewed by Mathematically Correct omit huge amounts (in this case nearly half) of the content of the standards of a traditional math sequence, even though these math programs are allegedly being adopted in order for students to meet "higher standards" being specified by the state. WA suffers from the same problem of having tests which cover 2 times what is specified in the EALR standards, which in turn aren't even covered by texts such as "Investigations" or "Everyday Mathematics" which typically cover HALF of what a traditional math textbook covered in terms of basic skills. The OSPI reform laws booklet says that WA is also covered by the SSI program, which explains why so many districts such as Lake Washington are jumping in with minimal opposition from parents who won't know what hit them until they start getting wacko homework assignments brought home by their kids 2 years after their board adopts the texts. Treisman pops up in my database as the guy famous for supposedly getting black and hispanics one grade ahead in calculus at Berekley by adopting attitudes and groups study habits of Asians (funny I was Asian once, and I don't remember any special group study habits when I was at MIT) I didn't realize that he's one of the big promoters of fuzzy math. Also note that Texas was promoting fuzzy math under the watch of GW Bush, who likes to accuse Gore of promoting this stuff. I've added the caps highlights. Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2000 08:38:42 -0400 To: stevengarlock@cs.com From: Donna Garner (by way of Fred Battey ) "Making Some Sense out of the Puzzle Pieces" by Donna Garner October 14, 2000 I am not the best person to try to put these puzzle pieces together; however, I do have access to information which others far more knowledgeable than myself have ferreted out. Here is what evidently has taken place: New York City Schools Chancellor Harold O. Levy has appointed a panel of experts to figure out why New York City eighth-grade students are doing so poorly on their Regents math exam (New York Times, October 13, 2000, written by ABBY GOODNOUGH): "More than three-quarters of New York City's eighth graders failed to reach acceptable levels on a statewide mathematics test last spring, raising serious questions about whether they will be able to pass a newly required Regents math exam before they graduate from high school in 2004. Harold O. Levy, the New York City schools chancellor, released a brief statement yesterday saying he was disappointed with the test results. Last week, he announced that he had appointed a panel to study how math is taught in city classrooms and recommend changes by next spring." Mr. Levy appointed Uri Treisman, head of the Dana Center at the University of Texas, as one of the experts to serve on the math panel. Does Mr. Levy not understand that the very people (e.g., Uri Treisman) who have promoted the failed performance-based, fuzzy math philosophy which has caused the New York City students to perform so poorly in the first place are the very experts he has appointed to rescue the New York City math program? That is like appointing a prisoner to lock the cellblock! I am attaching two articles from Texas. One is a well-researched report done by Chris Patterson in 1999 where she meticulously traced the NSF/Statewide Systemic Initiative (SSI) from its origin down to Uri Treisman's Dana Center. I have marked (<<<<< >>>>>>) a summary paragraph which contains the main findings in Chris's report. The other article was written by two of the Texas State Board of Education members who at the time were attempting to show how the Dana Center/Systemic Initiative were taking over local control of math curriculum and textbooks. Hopefully someone in New York City will read this information and sound the alarm. Donna Garner dggarner@swbell.net ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- EDUCATION CONNECTION of TEXAS 9323 Bowen Drive, San Antonio, TX 78250 Telephone 210-682-2343 Fax 210-521-9762 Chase Untermeyer, Chair February 24, 1999 Texas State Board of Education P.O.Box 692000-110706 Houston, TX 77269-2000 Fax 281-518-1106 and First Class Mail RE Statewide Systemic Initiative Dear Mr. Untermeyer Over the past months the State Board of Education has discussed several questions concerning the Texas Statewide Systemic Initiative. These important questions remain unanswered, and continue to trouble school districts throughout the state. I am writing to offer additional information about the Statewide Systemic Initiative and the need for the State Board of Education to assist local communities in resolving their problems with the Systemic Initiative. I hope this information will encourage the Board to re-examine questions raised about the Statewide Systemic Initiative, and to develop state policy or legislative recommendations to ensure communities can exercise local control over educational programs. Since last September, four questions have been posed and repeated to the State Board of Education. Does the Statewide Systemic Initiative promote specific textbooks? Does the Statewide Systemic Initiative promote specific instructional methodology, and specific curriculum programs? Has the Statewide Systemic Initiative engaged in activities to influence school districts to adopt specific textbooks and curricula? Who has the authority and responsibility to resolve problems with the Statewide Systemic Initiative - local school boards or the State Board of Education? Although the State Board of Education has listened to a variety of answers to these questions, information presented to the Board has been incomplete and, at times, misleading. The answers to these questions should begin with an understanding of the origins and objectives of Statewide Systemic Initiatives. The National Science Foundation created Statewide Systemic Initiatives (SSIs) to "change instructional practices in entire state educational systems," according to a report published by the National Science Foundation in 1998 entitled A Report on the evaluation of the National Science Foundation's Statewide Systemic Initiatives (Internet Web Site http//www.nsf. gov/cgi-bin/getpub?nsf98147). One of the operating goals established for SSIs is "developing, disseminating or adopting instructional materials." This and other operational goals are listed on an attachment to this letter identified as Exhibit 7, an excerpt from the National Science Foundation report. Page 2 of this report notes SSIs are charged to introduce instructional materials, state curriculum standards, instructional methodology, and assessments based on expectations for learning developed by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics Standards, and the National Science Education Standards. The National Science Foundation describes this specific approach to education as "standards-based," and identifies the components of "standards-based education" as instructional methods identified by the national standards, including constructivism (the student discovers facts and skills instead of being provided an organized sequence of instruction by the teacher), student-directed learning (the student learns what he is interested in learning), cooperative instruction (students teach each other), authentic performance-based assessment (students demonstrate learning by activities and projects instead of taking objective standardized tests), use of calculators and computers (students access information instead of acquiring basic facts and skills), and focus on applied learning (students learn daily applications of knowledge instead of theories and concepts) (p.ix). The National Science Foundation charges SSIs to introduce standards-based curricula and instructional methods from top-down by state policy, and from bottom-up by introducing model mathematics and science programs in school districts, and "scaling up" the program to achieve statewide implementation (p.15 and 17). Using its own words, the SSI acts as a "catalyst for change," in Texas (1997 Annual Report, p.10). The Texas SSI solicits school districts to implement mathematics and science programs and textbooks, provides funding incentives, and assists schools to implement the standards-based National Science Foundation curricula. According to the Texas SSI's 1997 Annual Report, it has implemented National Science Foundation programs in 609 schools in Texas. Almost one quarter of the students in Texas schools now use National Science Foundation curricula, according to the Texas SSI's 1998 Performance Effectiveness Report. These programs include Connected Mathematics Project; Everyday Mathematics; Investigations in Number, Data, and Space; Interactive Mathematics Programs, Contemporary Mathematics in Context; Science 2000; Full Option Science System; and Science and Technology for Children. Texas SSI has one overarching goal, according to its 1997 Annual Report "the implementation of a standards-based curriculum in every classroom, for every child" (Italics in original). Of all National Science Foundation programs, the Texas SSI is concentrating on "scaling up" Connected Mathematics Project (CMP) as a prototype for middle school math programs throughout the state (1997 Annual Report, p.9). The SSI reports that CMP has been implemented in 43 schools across the state, and the SSI is working "to expand the number of schools involved in the project" (1998 Program Effectiveness Review, p.8 and 1998Annual Report, p.9). The Texas SSI notes that authority exercised as the designated state Center for Educator Development in mathematics and science places the SSI "in an ideal position to promote and prepare districts for the adoption of curriculum." (1997 Annual Report, p.9). According to the National Science Foundation, scaling up reform in curricula and instruction to include all classrooms in the state (kindergarten to grade 12) is the primary goal for statewide systemic initiatives (A Report on the Evaluation of the National Science Foundation's Statewide Systemic Initiatives, 1998, p.3, http//www.nsf.gov/cgi-bin/getpub?nsf98147). The Texas Mathematics and Science Center for Educator Development promotes the National Science Foundation-sponsored mathematics and science programs. The Internet Web Site for the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (http//www-tenet.cc.utexas.edu/ssi) lists only these specific textbooks as model curricula. The statewide Curriculum Conference for schools conducted by the Texas SSI prior to the State adoption of mathematics textbooks showcased only the specific National Science Foundation-sponsored textbooks (NSF Curriculum Showcase Conference, November 11-13, 1998, Austin, TX). As the Center for Educator Development, the SSI developed an Instructional Materials Evaluation and Selection Process Manual and trained more than 60 mathematics leaders around the state to use this tool to ensure "that new textbooks adopted for the next decade will be standards-based" (1998 Annual Report, p.6). As the Center for Educator Development, the Texas SSI establishes guidelines for teaching mathematics by identifying standards-based instructional methods. The SSI's Internet Web Site (http//www-tenet.edu/teks/math) publishes "position papers" that advise teachers and schools * CONSTRUCTIVISM * ONE TRACK FOR ALL * COOPERATIVE * CALCULATORS * * NO CORRECT ANSWER * Constructivism is the best method of teaching - where students discover their own learning and teachers facilitate instead of providing direct instruction; * Mathematics should never be presented as any organized sequence of facts or skills; * Classrooms should never be organized by ability grouping because it harms student learning; * Students should work in cooperative groups for both learning and grading; * Students should be encouraged to use calculators at all times to remove the necessity for learning low-level, prerequisite skills; and * Students should not be provided or encouraged to seek correct answers. The National Science Foundation-sponsored textbooks incorporate standards- based instructional methodology that represents a significant departure from traditional mathematics learning. To substantiate this assertion, a description of the instructional model employed by Connected Mathematics is provided as an attachment (published on the State University of Michigan Internet Web Site http//www.mth.msu.edu/cmp). There is evidence that neither teachers nor parents support standards-based instruction in Texas. Over the past year, newspapers have described parent concern in Austin ("Middle School math adds up to change," Austin American Statesman, December 14, 1998) and teacher concern in San Antonio ("Standards- based Curriculum," San Antonio Urban Systemic Initiative Newsletter, August 1998). Both parents and teachers express concern that standards-based mathematics programs, such as Connected Mathematics and Everyday Mathematics fail to teach students basic, fundamental math skills. In Plano, parental concern over neglected skills have provoked demands that the school provide alternative traditional curriculum ("School district should scrap Connected math experiment," Plano Star Courier, August 12, 1998). NO PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR FUZZY MATH, THEY WANT BASICS Public opinion research conducted nationally by Public Agenda documents public (both teacher and parent) rejection of new instructional methods in mathematics and the research documents the importance placed by the public on traditional mathematic skills, including pencil-paper computation, and memorization of facts and skills (Different Drummers, and Given the Circumstances, NY, 1996 and 1997). The National Science Foundation recognizes that public support is lacking for standards-based mathematics and science programs. SELL BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY IF PUBLIC THINK FUZZY MATH SUCKS Their five year Report on the Evaluation of the National Science Foundation's Statewide Systemic Initiatives published in 1998 recognizes that many SSIs have failed to gain public support by increasing public awareness of their efforts, and, in some states, increased public awareness has provoked significant public opposition to the SSIs and standards-based education reform (p.42). This report notes SSIs have been able to establish their programs within a state more successfully after securing commitments from business and industry rather than the public because the public associates standards-based learning with outcome-based education (p.31). Research indicates that public concerns about standards-based instruction are well-founded. Quantitative research conducted both internationally and in the United States documents standards-based instruction fails to provide basic skills (The Schools We Need, Why We Don't Have Them, E.D.Hirsch, Jr., Doubleday, NY, 1996, p.127-175). Recent research published by Carnegie Mellon specifically documents the failure of standards-based practices in mathematics instruction (Applications and Misapplications of Cognitive Psychology to Mathematics Education, http//www.act.psy.cmu. edu/personal/ja/misapplied.html#fnO) . FUZZY MATH FAILS ALL BUT FAILS MINORITIES WORST Project Follow Through, the twenty-five year study of instructional methods conducted by the U.S. Department of Education, confirms standards-based instruction fails all students, but fails minority students the most ("Sponsor Findings from Project Follow Through," Effective School Practices, Vol.15, No.1, Winter 1996, p.35). NO DOCUMENTATION THAT SSI MATH WORKS At the conclusion of a five year evaluation of statewide systemic initiatives, the National Science Foundation could document no quantitative, uniform or reliable data indicating their standards-based mathematics and science curricula improve academic achievement (A Report on the Evaluation of the National Science Foundation's Statewide Systemic Initiatives Program, 1998, p.v). To date, no independent disinterested research has been conducted to determine if the Texas SSI's standards-based mathematics and science programs are academically effective. The only evaluation of SSI programs in Texas has been conducted by the SSI, itself, and the evaluation has been limited to TAAS scores of a few selected schools. No analysis has been conducted to compare the TAAS scores of the 609 SSI-engaged schools with scores of non-participating schools, determining if the percent increase in TAAS of SSI schools is equal to or greater than the increase in TAAS of schools without standards-based instructional materials. A limited example of this evaluative approach is provided by a review of the TAAS math scores of sixth grade students in Bedichek Middle School of Austin ISD, using Connected Mathematics between 1997 and 1998 Bedichek Middle School - 3.8% increase Middle Schools in Austin ISD - 4.1% increase State Average - 4.3% increase LOCAL CONTROL ACTUALLY HELPS TAKEOVER OF SSI MATH Although standards-based educational programs and practices lack support by teachers and parents in Texas, "local control" in local schools and communities has proven ineffective in halting their implementation. According to the SSI, the creation of local control in the mid-1990's, transferring authority for educational decisions from state to local districts, created "unprecedented opportunities [for the Texas SSI] to shape and reshape educational practice" (1997 Annual Report, p.3). Elimination of state authority for education allowed the Texas SSI to create an "infrastructure" of policies to introduce and maintain standards-based education reform. According to the National Science Foundation, the mission of SSIs is to introduce systemic reform of a state system of public education, and create a new system of standards-based education, coordinating curriculum, assessment, college programs for teacher preparation, teacher certification and re- certification, instructional policy, textbook adoption, school-based decision- making, and financial resources (A Report on the Evaluation of the National Science Foundation's Statewide Systemic Initiatives, 1998, p.5). And for this new system of governance to work, school districts and states "must jettison their traditional role as regulators of local practice and assume the new role of technical assisters," according to this same report (p.6). TEXAS SSI IS IN CONTROL NOW The Texas SSI has successfully assumed a significant degree of authority for mathematics and science curricula, assessments, college programs to prepare teachers, teacher certification and recertification, instructional policy, textbook adoption, school-based decision-making, and financial resources (Annual Reports and Performance Effectiveness Reviews, 1997 and 1998). And parents, teachers, school administrators, and local school board members (as well as the State Board of Education) have lost a great degree of authority for educational decisions. YOU MUST ADOPT FUZZY MATH BOOKS TO GET SSI MONEY An example is provided by the recent state adoption of mathematics textbooks. At the same time that the State Board of Education adopted a list of conforming and nonconforming textbooks for schools, the SSI published their own list of National Science Foundation textbooks through the curriculum showcase conference. When the SSI was questioned by the State Board of Education about promoting specific textbooks and curricular programs in November 1998, representatives of the SSI denied promoting any textbooks or program, such as Connected Mathematics. However, any school district under contract with the SSI or an Urban Systemic Initiative for improving mathematics and science programs are obligated to select National Science Foundation textbooks. Other school districts in Texas have been similarly constrained to select National Science Foundation textbooks by the textbook selection guideline issued by the SSI as state Center for Educator Development, and by the state policies for mathematics and science instruction established by the state Center that require standards-based instructional practices (at present the only standards-based instructional materials available are those sponsored by the National Science Foundation). Additionally, and most importantly, schools recognize that if an SSI promoted standards-based textbook is not selected, the school places its students at risk of scoring low on the new TAAS test being designed by the SSI (involvement in designing TAAS documented in 1998Annual Report, p.9) which would adversely impact the school's accountability ratings. Another example is the problem now encountered by parents in Plano who have struggled for a year to induce their schools to offer a traditional mathematics course as an alternative to the standards-based SSI program Connected Mathematics. The parents requested that the district offer an alternative, because they noted their children were not learning the fundamental mathematics skills expected for middle school. When the district refused to provide parents with a traditional mathematics curriculum, the parents hired an attorney, and filed a complaint against the school district. FUZZY MATH CAME FROM SSI, NOT THE PARENTS WHO WANT TO KILL IT During the past year, the parents have investigated how Connected Mathematics curriculum became adopted by the Plano Independent School District. Their research revealed that the Texas SSI approached school district administration in Plano to request implementation of the standards-based program (Letter to Susan Modisette, Principal, Haggard Middle School from Darlene Yanez, Research and Evaluation Specialist, Texas Statewide Systemic Initiative, January 29, 1998). FUZZY MATH ADOPTED WITHOUT SCHOOL BOARD APPROVAL The administration of Plano Independent School District implemented Connected Mathematics without review or approval of the Plano School Board (Testimony to the Plano Independent School District Board Hearing of the Level I Complaint related to the Connected Mathematics Program by Don Mills, January 14, 1999). Almost one year later, the Plano parents' complaint remains unresolved. According to testimony provided to the State Board of Education in January 1999 by Plano parents, the district has not complied with the parents' request to review 40% OF STATE STANDARDS NOT COVERED BY CONNECTED MATH! the supplemental curriculum that the district claimed to have developed to teach the 40% of state mathematics curriculum standards not provided by Connected Mathematics instruction. According to testimony, the district had not informed the parents that Connected Mathematics failed to meet almost half of the state requirements for mathematics instruction, nor had the district informed the parents that their children would participate in an experimental pilot program. NO DOCUMENTATION TO SUPPORT EFFECTIVENESS OF CONNECTED MATH According to testimony, neither the school district nor the Texas SSI would supply any research documentation to support the academic efficacy of Connected Mathematics. The Plano parents pled with the State Board of Education to investigate their problem with the SSI. They claimed that the Plano problem is a state problem shared by approximately 400 other schools throughout Texas, concerning an agency designated by the Texas Education Agency as a state authority in education, and funded by the Texas Education Agency to implement its programs. Several members of the State Board declared that the Plano problem involved "local control," and denied state involvement in the problem. One of the Plano parents asked Commissioner Moses to investigate the academic effectiveness of Connected Mathematics in all of the schools presently engaged in this program, and to eliminate the SSI programs that are not effective in raising academic achievement. TEXAS SPENDS 2 MILLION ANNUALLY TO PROMOTE FUZZY MATH Kenneth Johnson based his request on the 1997 State Appropriations Bill that directs $1,850,000 annually to the Commissioner of Education for funding SSI programs, evaluating SSI programs, and eliminating programs that "do not demonstrate a positive effect on student performance." In the two months following Mr. Johnson's request, the Commissioner of Education has yet to respond. SSI IS MONSTER THAT DOES NOT RESPOND TO PUBLIC INTEREST In the two examples given, the Texas SSI failed to (1) observe established state procedures for textbook adoption by promoting one type of textbook sponsored by one organization (standards-based textbooks sponsored by the National Science Foundation); (2) respect established local school board authority for determining curriculum by negotiating with school administration; (3) provide full and accurate representation of SSI operational goals and activities to the State Board of Education by stating that the SSI does not promote any textbook or promote its programs to school districts; and (4) provide data to parents about SSI programs. The failure of a state agency (or an agency designated to provide state services) to respond to public interest indicates a clear lack of accountability that is interfering with local control of education. This lack of accountability cannot be remedied by parents or local school boards. The SSI is not governed by any elected official in the state and, therefore, is not required to reflect or respond to public interest. TEXAS SSI IS ACTUALLY A FEDERAL PROGRAM OPERATING IN STATES The Texas SSI is, in fact, a federal program that operates in states to implement federal education strategy, according to the Report on the Evaluation of the National Science Foundation's Statewide Systemic Initiatives (p.51 and 53). The National Science Foundation was designated as a federal partner of the U.S. Department of Education by the Goals 2000 Educate America Act of 1994, legislation drafted to provide a national framework for education reform (Public Law 103-227, Title 2, Section 232). Testimony provided to the U.S. House of Representatives on July 23, 1997 by Secretary Richard Riley describes the collaboration between the U.S. Department of Education and the National Science Foundation to develop math and science instruction (Federal Document Clearinghouse, 1997 WL 11235230). AMERICANS DO NOT WANT FEDERAL CONTROL The Texas's SSI's reticence about its origins and objectives is understandable. A 1997 national opinion poll conducted by the Center for Education Research in Washington found over 70% of Americans support little or no involvement of the federal government in education (National Survey of Americans' Attitudes toward Education and School Reform). A national poll conducted by Public Agenda in 1998 found that fully 88% of Americans think the federal government should not make decisions about curricula and instruction (Public Agenda Online 1998, http//www.publicagenda.org). <<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I thank you for reading this lengthy correspondence and hope the information is helpful. This letter was written to broaden your understanding of the Texas SSI and the difficulties encountered by parents and schools with the SSI. I hope the information will encourage the State Board of Education to re- examine the questions raised by the parents of Plano and become better informed about the Statewide Systemic Initiative. If you or any member of the State Board of Education have any questions about this letter or wish further information, I would be glad to provide assistance. Sincerely, Chris Patterson, Director Education Connection of Texas Copies Commissioner Mike Moses, Fax 512-463-9008 and First Class Mail Alma A. Allen, Fax 713-734-1547 and First Class Mail Mary Helen Berlanga, Fax 512-881-1029 and First Class Mail Joe J.Bernal, Fax 210-342-2182 and First Class Mail David Bradley, Fax 409-833-5134 and First Class Mail Rene Nunez, Fax 915-581-9187 and First Class Mail Robert Offutt, Fax 210-692-7477 and First Class Mail Grace Shore, Fax 903-759-7722 and First Class Mail Rosie Collins Sorrells, Fax 214-376-5107 and First Class Mail Will D. Davis, Fax 512-476-1451 and First Class Mail Don McLeroy, Fax 409-846-1174 and First Class Mail Geraldine Miller, Fax 214-522-8560 and First Class Mail Richard B. Neill, Fax 817-370-7763 and First Class Mail Judy Strickland, Fax 806-293-7070 and First Class Mail Richard Watson, Fax 254-965-6980 and First Class Mail Kenneth Johnson, Fax 972-380-5916 and First Class Mail Enclosures (1) Exhibit 7, The SSIs' Strategies for Promoting Systemic Reform, A Report on the Evaluation of the National Science Foundation's S Statewide Systemic Initiatives, National Science Foundation, 1998; and (2) The CMP Instructional Model, Connected Mathematics Project, Michigan State University Internet Web Site, http//www.mth.msu.edu/cmp. ***************************************************************** THE FUZZY MATH EXPERIMENT: SHOW ME THE MONEY! By Richard Neill and David Bradley Everyone knows that progressive education reforms of the last generation gave us "Johnny Can't Read." Regrettably, our math curriculum is undergoing similar reforms. So, now, Johnny won't be able to add, subtract, or make change, either. To eliminate the reading problems,Texas and California have replaced the failed Fuzzy Reading Experiment (called "whole language") with a proven winner: Phonics. Accomplishing that change for the better, one wonders why some school districts are rushing to enroll in the CONNECTED MATH PROJECT -- aptly termed, "fuzzy math." Could the answer be "money"? We're already seeing evidence of the shift to "fuzzy math" in the poor algebra scores reported last August by the Texas Education Agency. No mention was made of the "fuzzy algebra" books adopted over the objections of these two board members and others. One in particular, Addison Wesley's FOCUS ON ALGEBRA, paid a lot of attention to jalapeno recipes, Vietnam war protests, multi-cultural poets and extreme environmentalism. However, quadratic equations weren't introduced until after page 100. The teacher's edition even emphasized that correct answers are not always needed. It's no wonder our students performed poorly. Parents of Plano middle school students recently complained to the State Board of Education that their children had been falling behind in math -- ever since Plano ISD began piloting the Fuzzy Math Experiment. Plano is using Scott Foresman/Addison-Wesley's CONNECTED MATH , just one of many "fuzzy math" books now available to districts. Its teacher's manual freely admits "students may not do as well on parts of standardized tests assessing computational skills ...." And a 1996 study by CONNECTED MATH'S creators confirms that its sixth- and seventh-grade students display poor computational skills on the Iowa Test of Basic Skills. Instead of teaching students how to solve problems, "fuzzy math" lets students INVESTIGATE their own solutions, while providing no model. Students are kept busy -- reinventing the wheel. The result? Plano parents are hiring tutors. So, what's the allure of the Great Fuzzy Math Experiment? First, districts across the state are being promised "reform." The real bait, however, is "free" taxpayer money and "free" teacher training. Can anybody turn that down? Exposing the Trojan Horse revealed even further enticement. Who would have suspected the federally-funded NSF (National Science Foundation) of promoting "fuzzy math," paying for development of CONNECTED MATH , and luring school districts with huge grants? Yet, here's the money trail: Austin ISD received a $5 million NSF grant for "fuzzy math" teacher training in 1997. Beaumont ISD accepted a $3.3 million NSF grant last November. In October, NSF announced $10 million for "Rural Systemic Initiatives" through West Texas A&M University. In San Antonio and El Paso, NSF-funded "Urban Systemic Initiatives" are underway. The spider working with all these flies is SSI (Statewide Systemic Initiative), a federally-funded program developed by state-funded Dana Center at the University of Texas. SSI says "its most important work to date is in directing the implementation of the CONNECTED MATHEMATICS PROJECT curriculum in 43 schools across the state." However, after several years of subjecting other people's kids to the Great Fuzzy Math Experiment, SSI refuses to provide Plano parents and others with their findings. Should we be surprised by SSI's secrecy? Remember, we've already seen the poor algebra scores, weak computational skills -- and Plano parents are hiring tutors. Before children are plunged any further into this experiment, parents in Austin, Beaumont, San Antonio, El Paso and rural areas would be wise in asking SSI and their school districts about these failures. Another concern: After funneling all this "free" tax money into training teachers in the CONNECTED MATH PROJECT, what textbooks do you think will be adopted come spring? Anything but "fuzzy math"? Yes, it's appalling that the lure of money is directing the education of our children, and that tax dollars are moonlighting as influence- peddlers in the textbook market. But The Real Travesty Is That Students Whose Districts Take The "Fuzzy Math" Bait Will Lose Even The Option Of A Rigorous, Traditional Math Course. So, how can you safeguard your child's mathematics education? (1) Obtain a copy of Texas Public Policy Foundation's report on math textbooks, 210-614-0800; website: http://www.tppf.org; and (2) Speak to your local school board. They are choosing math books now and in the next few weeks -- books which will be used through 2005. Don't Let Your Schools Be Baited By Money At The Expense Of Your Child's Education. Bio: Richard Neill and David Bradley were elected in 1996 to four-year terms on the State Board of Education. Richard Neill, representing Tarrant County, is the father of three and a dentist residing in Fort Worth. David Bradley, the father of two and a businessman in Beaumont, represents Brazoria, Chambers, Galveston, Jefferson and parts of Harris County. __________________________ Material forwarded by Fred Battey, Education Loop Administrator Note: In accordance with Title 17, U.S.C., section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. This material may not be copied or quoted, placed on any web site or other open forum without the express consent of the copyright owner .