Date sent: Mon, 22 Mar 1999 08:36:14 -0600 (CST) To: "ClearingHouse" From: "eca@fastlane.net" Subject: [education-consumers] Cathy Seeley & Texas math debate Copies to: ECC Send reply to: "eca@fastlane.net" ===================================================================== İFORT WORTH STAR-TELEGRAM 3/22/99 THERE'S NOTHING FUZZY ABOUT THIS KIND OF MATH by Cathy Seeley, director of policy and professional development for the Texas Statewise Systemic Initiative In their recent commentary, David Bradley and Richard Neill, two members of the State Board of Education, joined a small but vocal group of critics (http://www.fastlane.net/~eca/mathreview.html) using labels like "fuzzy math," "new new math" and "whole math" to attack school improvement efforts in Texas and the nation. They appealed to the public's fear that students might not learn the mathematics they need if Texas education continues on its current course. It is time to set the record straight about what is really going onin Texas mathematics classrooms -- dramatic improvement in students' mathematical achievement. The National Assessment of Educational Progress shows solid evidence that the performance of U.S. students on mathematics problem-solving is on the upswing and that mastery of computation skills is stronger than at any time in 20 years. Texas was singled out in a 1998 National Education Goals Panel report as one of two states leading the nation in improving mathematics performance, and as the state making the most significant progress in closing the achievement gap between various ethnic and socioeconomic groups. Critics of recent mathematics improvement efforts use epithets like "fuzzy math" to advocate reversing Texas's current direction in favor of teaching only computational skills. Texas students need to be able to add, subtract, multiply and divide. But this "basics only" mathematics falls short of the rigor, challenge and usefulness they need for their future. They also need to learn how to use measurement and geometry in the physical world, interpret data, and use statistics to make sense of the flood of numerical information they encounter every day. Bradley and Neill included specific allegations about the Connected Mathematics Project and the Texas Statewide Systemic Initiative, calling the SSI "the spider working with all these [CMP] flies." This vivid metaphor conjurs up an insidious picture, with the SSI enticing unwitting schools to enter its evil web, lured by "free taxpayer money" and "huge grants." The facts are quite the opposite. The SSI has funding from multiple sources, including the National Science Foundation and the Texas Education Agency, to work with Texas schools to improve mathematics and science programs. No state funds and less than 6 percent of NSF funds are devoted to work with Texas schools using CMP materials. The SSI supports 43 Texas schools that have requested assistance in implementing CMP, a research-based mathematics program with seven years' evidence showing significant student learning. Bradley and Neill neglected to mention that Texas CMP students are showing similar gains on Texas assessments. There are no "huge grants" to schools from the SSI, and the SSI has no intention of influencing schools' local textbook adoption decisions. Consistent with Texas's emphasis on local control, it is important for communities to conduct their own analyses of materials. Critics such as Bradley and Neill mistrust educators and local community decision-making processes. They diminish the efforts of teachers everywhere when they imply that educators are part of a conspiracy to dumb down America. They make fun of programs calling for students to use mathematics in real situations or solve problems that might be interesting. Bradley and Neill have belittled every achievement and have discounted legitimate research that disagrees with their point of view, including research from the National Academy of Sciences, the National Science Foundation and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. To improve requires change. We have a responsibility to buld on the best of what has worked in the past, strengthened by incorporating what is working now. Regardless of our selective memory about how wel traditional programs may or may not have worked, yesterday's schools simply will not work in today's world. ===================================================================== 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