SSI IS NSF CAMPAIGN TO REPLACE ALL MATH TEXTBOOKS WITH "STANDARDS", NO EVIDENCE OF IMPROVMENT, THEY ARE WRITING NEW TESTS COSTS $2M IN TEXAS ALONE Texas Statewide Systemic Initiative \doc\web\99\04\ssi.txt "Students should not be provided or encouraged to seek correct answers. " The National Science Foundation created Statewide Systemic Initiatives (SSIs) to "change instructional practices in entire state educational systems," 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. 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). 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" 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) 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) 1997 State Appropriations Bill that directs $1,850,000 annually to the Commissioner of Education for funding SSI programs Date sent: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 15:09:34 -0600 (CST) To: "ClearingHouse" From: "eca@fastlane.net" Subject: [education-consumers] SBOE & conflict with NSF's SSI/part 1 Send reply to: "eca@fastlane.net" ===================================================================== Dear Jeanne: I am enclosing a copy of my correspondence with the Texas State Board of Education. If you would like to print it, you may. Although this is specifically related to Texas, the information equally applies to the 23 other states engaged in Statewide Systemic Initiatives sponsored by the National Science Foundation. Thanks, Chris Patterson ========================================================================== ==== 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 1998 Annual 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 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). 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. 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). 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). 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 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). 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. 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. 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). 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. [continued in Part 2 post] Date sent: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 15:09:40 -0600 (CST) To: "ClearingHouse" From: "eca@fastlane.net" Subject: [education-consumers] SBOE & conflict with NSF's SSI/part 2 Send reply to: "eca@fastlane.net" ===================================================================== PART 2 OF LETTER FROM: Chris Patterson EDUCATION CONNECTION of TEXAS 9323 Bowen Drive, San Antonio, TX 78250 Telephone: 210-682-2343 Fax: 210-521-9762 ADDRESSED TO: 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 ------------------------------------------ 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 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. 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. 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. 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. 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). 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). In summary, the Texas SSI is a federal initiative implementing the federal plan for standards-based systemic reform of education in Texas, an initiative designed to develop a unified, nationalized system of education in the United States, according to a report published by the National Governors' Association (Preparing Students for the Twenty-first Century, 1998, http://www.nga.org/Pubs/IssueBriefs/default.asp). The SSI is introducing the new standards-based curriculum and textbooks developed by the National Science Foundation to Texas, as well as changing all aspects of education to support standards-based instruction. The SSI is changing educational governance in Texas, transforming elected officials responsible for educational decision- making into facilitators for the SSI, and federal reform. The authority designated by the Texas Education Agency to the SSI has enabled the SSI to bypass local control of education with the appearance of state sanction. The Texas SSI lacks public support for its activities and its presence. Its policies and programs are not supported by research that documents academic effectiveness. On the contrary, a substantial body of research documents the failure of standards-based instruction, especially for minority students. Public opinion does not support federal intervention in local education, nor does the public support the specific curricula and methods introduced by standards-based education reform. Despite the lack of public support for the SSI and its plan for education, the SSI has introduced significant educational reforms in Texas because no parent nor elected official for education now possesses the authority required to halt its efforts. The problem with the SSI brought to the State Board of Education by the Plano parents is shared by public schools throughout the State. Neither the Plano parents nor any school district in Texas possess the educational authority to resolve problems with the Texas SSI. The Commissioner of Education does hold a measure of authority for the SSI, statutorily vested with authority to evaluate, eliminate or fund specific SSI programs. The Commissioner of Education also shares the position of Principal Investigator of the SSI with Dr. Uri Treisman (1997 Annual Report, p.2). The Commissioner could assist parents and school districts to eliminate unwanted programs, such as Connected Mathematics in Plano. And while the State Board of Education holds no authority over the SSI or the Commissioner of Education, the State Board does possess authority to identify state problems in education, investigate state problems in education and recommend solutions to the State Legislature. Control of the SSI and remedying the injury to local authority for education that has been caused by standards-based reforms can only be resolved by the Texas Legislature. 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 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. ===================================================================== EDUCATION CONSUMERS CLEARINGHOUSE networking and information for parents and taxpayers on the internet Subscriptions & Archives: http://education-consumers.com or You are currently subscribed to education-consumers as: arthurhu@halcyon.com TO UNSUBSCRIBE: Send a blank email to leave-education-consumers-989462S@lists.dundee.net ===================================================================== For less mail, click on the following link and choose 1) a daily digest, 2) a daily list of subjects, or 3) no mail (read postings on Web) http://lists.dundee.net/scripts/lyris.pl?enter=education-consumers For more help & info: http://www.lyris.com/help or ===================================================================== EDUCATION CONSUMERS CLEARINGHOUSE networking and information for parents and taxpayers on the internet Subscriptions & Archives: http://education-consumers.com or You are currently subscribed to education-consumers as: arthurhu@halcyon.com TO UNSUBSCRIBE: Send a blank email to leave-education-consumers-989462S@lists.dundee.net ===================================================================== For less mail, click on the following link and choose 1) a daily digest, 2) a daily list of subjects, or 3) no mail (read postings on Web) http://lists.dundee.net/scripts/lyris.pl?enter=education-consumers For more help & info: http://www.lyris.com/help or