\doc\web\99\07\lkwamath.txt To: Julie Goldsmith, Superintendent please see message below: cc: seattle.politics,seattle.general,wa-ed-deform etc PLEASE STOP NSF/NCTM INVENTIVE MATH If you thought invented spelling was bad, get ready for Invented Math. I just saw the textbook adoption committee rubber stamp the new constructivist math textbooks without any discussion. As usual, reformer in chief Julie Goldsmith was in charge. The criterion used by the "committee" was basically written to only qualify the Seymour and other NSF funded approaches. I had forgotten to attend the one official presentation to interested parents, but there was no invitation sent to all parents in my kids' backpacks like the graduation standards. For k-5, it's Dale Seymour Publications Investigations in Number, Data, and Space. For G6 Connected mathematics is really the same series. I thought that the Scott Forseman would be the main text, it got a B grade and I've seen it used by Catholic, Christian and private schools, it looks like a regular textbook with a bunch of other junk thrown in for "more learning". But the plan is that is is only for "transition" to the Seymour piece as teachers figure out how to use the "real" texts. This year, there is no standard text for K-2, indeed my kid got a scattering of worksheets of varying inappropriate levels and sequence, and I quizzed him on centimeters and they had not covered it yet, it was an item he missed on the Quest math test. Ironically, like the Graduation footnotes which turned up the Littleton disaster with OBE, the NCTM handout "Relationships Between Research and the NCTM Standards" by James Hiebert, University of Delaware mentioned the following NCTM math disaster: (entire document on web:) http://www.nctm.org/jrme/abstracts/volume_30/vol30-01-hiebert.html Journal for Research in Mathematics Education January 1999, Vol. 30, No. 1, Page 3-19 Relationships Between Research and the NCTM Standards James Hiebert, University of Delaware An increasingly common debate is illustrated by this except from the April 26, 1998 edition of the Riverside Press-Enterprise newspaper: High failure rates and concerns that students are not learning the math skills they need has prompted a third of Inland high schools trying a new college-prep program to drop it. Riverside's Poly High School discontinued College Prepatory Mathematics [CPM] in June after only 27 percent of the Algebra I students earned a C or better. One semester after scrapping the program, the passing rate went up to 42 percent (Sharma, 1998) As the story continues, it becomes clear that there is no consensus among the local stakeholders about whether or not CPM is a failure nor about why it is having the reported effect. Some other disturbing excerpts: * Standards increasingly emphasize young students' invention of arithmetic procedures because, in part, we know they are capable of such inventions * Mathematical inventions are included because an additional value judgement has been made -- that invention is an important mathematical process. * Most characteristic of traditional mathematics teachintg is the emphasis on teaching procedure. Little attention is ... conceptual ideas or connecting the procedures with the concepts that show why they work.. 96% of the time that student were doing seatwork they were practicing prodecures that they had been shown how to do [horrors! we have to stop that] * Achievement data indicate they are learning simple calculation procedures, terms and definitions. They are not learning what they have few opportunities to learn - how to adjust procedures to solve new problems or how to engage in other mathematical processes... this data indicate that traditional teaching approaches are deficient and can be improved [but proving they don't know what we didn't teach them doesn't mean it's worth taking time away from basics to try to teach something else!] * PBS NewsHour comment "Although there was never any scientific research conducted on the effectiveness of this style of teaching, the NCTM _hoped_ that it would better prepare American students for the modern adult workplace" May 11, 1998. Expressing a similar sentiment, a parent removed her son from a reform mathematics program because "I like going with what I know is provne. I just don't want to take the chance".... The long running experiment we have been conducing with traditional methods show serious defiencencies, and we should attend carefully to the research findings that are accumulating regarding alternative programs [yeah, but the reasearch only shows failure by traditional measures, and nobody can pass the new WASL style math tests no matters what text they use] * If students have more opportunity to construct mathematical understandings, they will construct them more often and more deeply. The question is at what cost? Will they fail to master other knowledge or skills we value? The results show that well-designed and implemented instructional programs can facilitarte both conceptual understeaning and procedural skill.[Dale Seymour does not teach how to add 42+69 nor multiply or divide without a calculator or drawing counting pictures] * Students learn new concepts and skills while they are solving problems. The traditional approach is to teach a procedure then practice. Alternative is based on student acquire skills while they develop the problem [This explains why Seymour does not teach how to add, you're supposed to figure out your "own way" so you can "deeply" understand it] * A long running debate has been whether students should practice procedures and then try to understand them or understand the procedures first [The new textbooks won't even teach you ANY prodcedures!] * The standards proposed by the NCTM are, in many ways, more ambitious than those of traditional programs. On hte basis of _beliefs_ about what students should KNOW AND BE ABLE TO DO(TM) the Standards include conceptual understanding and the use of key mathematical processes.. * There are no programs at any level that share the core instructional features, have been implemented as intended for reasonable lengths of time, and show that students perform more poorly than their traditionally taught peers [massive failures at CPM, Andover, Palo Alto, Vermont, Chicago, etc etc don't count evidently because they weren't implemented long enough?] I'm sure anybody who calls up the Lake Washington district office can get a copy of this excellent and scary document. The Dale Seymour series is the one grade worst by Mathematically Correct, it does not even teach any standard way to add with carry or subtract with borrow, or multiply. It relies on "invented" methods, and is full of"multicultural" supplements. The introduction text For example, after the kid are done singing "Bingo" (I kid you not, they've got sheet music for the song in the back of the rhythm pattern unit), kids who know songs in other languages are encourageed to share. Kids are sent home with card games and the entire family is required to participate for a week at home. Looks like about 2 hr prep time for each 1 hour lesson, it's worse for the teachers than the kids and parents! Can you help? We have to stop the Seymour math book and the graduation requirements, it's not going to happen under current district TQM procedures. Plano Texas is currently mounting a parent's rebellion against the 6th grade version of this National Science Foundation funded NCTM standards based garbage. It won't help kids master the WASL, it will frustrate parents, students, and teachers Here's the Mathematically Correct Review 1/1999 http://www.mathematicallycorrect.com/books.htm 5th grade 4.1 A- SRA/McGraw-Hill SRA Math: Explorations and Applications The second group contains two programs that might be reasonably effective and contain a fair degree of mathematical depth, but fall short of the expectations of this review. There are substantial differences between these programs, but both have the potential for success. However, achievement to the level expected in the review would require supplementation. 3.8 B+ Saxon Publishers Math 65: An Incremental Development 3.5 B Silver Burdett Ginn Mathematics - Texas Edition The third group contains three programs with ratings overall that are below the expectations of this review. All three are lacking an adequate introduction to negative numbers, for example. Achievement with these programs would be expected to be limited to modest levels without more substantial supplementation. 3.2 B- Scott Foresman Addison Wesley Math - Texas Edition 3.1 B- Harcourt Brace Math Advantage 3.0 B- McGraw-Hill Math in My World Finally, the last group contains the two programs that are not recommended for fifth grade use. 2.3 C- Everyday Learning Corporation Everyday Mathematics 1.3 F Dale Seymour Publications Investigations in Number, Data, and Space Seymour G2 book does not even tell how to add 2 digit numbers Seymour G5 book does not teach how to multiply 2 digit numbers, discourages the use of standard division method, no decimal multiplication or division The emphasis on having students to devise their own methods leaves open the possibility that the students will not achieve any regular and reliable approaches. This risk is aggravated by a limited number and range of practice items. The Plano Independent School District has been piloting the Connected Math Project since the beginning of the 1996-'97 school year in 4 of its 10 Middle Schools. The textbook adoption is now in full swing and a group of parents have banded together in an effort to prevent the adoption of this NSF funded "Fuzzy Math" textbook in favor of a more balancedd approach. Our Level 4 grievance was heard by the School Board last Tuesday night and, as expected, the Board did not grant any of the relief we sought. The actual textbook adoption vote will take place in two weeks. An article in the Dallas Morning News regarding the Board Meeting and our struggle can be found at www.dallasnews.com/metro-plano-nf/plano12.htm. Our local newspaper gave the issue page one coverage as well, but their website does not get updated until later in the day. Find it at www.planostar.com Also, one of our parents has a web site with some links and previous articles at http://cmpinpisd.freeservers.com. As you may surmise from the articles, we need all the help we can get, so any suggestions or advice would be appreciated. Sue Sarhady 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). ========================================= To Julie Goldsmith: ------------------- I really apologize for not making it to the official parents meeting, but I must report my alarm that you have created a process which had rubber stamped the worst possible math text for our children. Scott Forsemen is about the B grade that Mathematically Correct gave it, but you've got to stop the Dale Seymour series, even as a transition. I don't want my kids to bringing home this stuff for the next 5 years, I want them to learn math. I would not even support piloting this program in one school, I would not wish this fate on any school. It will frustrate students, the teachers who have to do 2 hrs of prep and re-education for each 1 hour lesson and the parents who have to do the daily item hunts or card games or whatever other crazy homework tasks are generated by this monstrosity. The fact is that any of the math materials created around the NTCM math standards, or even worse, funded by the National Science Foundations have been shown to be wasteful, ineffective, and all around massive failure. Even the NTCM is recanting its earlier position on the standards. It is impossible to take a page out of a traditional half-inch home schooler 2nd grade math text and figure out where the corresponding skill is covered, if at all anywhere among the 8 or 9 books in the Seymonr series. How could you have possibly approved a textbook that not only won't tell you how to add or subtract with borrow or carry, but requires you to invent a procedure even if the child's parents have taught them the correct procedure? I am almost sure that there was absolutely no debate about the merits of the NSF/NCTM invented math approach, I was appalled to see the committee pass it without even any discussion, much less debate, and no presentation of the downsides of the proposed texts. These are my recommendations/demands 1. A link from your math textbook page to this review and letter, and the Mathematically Correct textbook reviews and my contact info. 2. CC this letter to everyone on the math text book committee and every person who has approved this series without hearing the negative reviews this series and NSF/NCTM belief systems have gotten from the education consumer community. 2. A meeting in the resource center announced in a flyer sent to every elementary school child to have 50/50 debate where parents can hear about the Mathematically correct review and have somebody like me show what's wrong with the series. 3. Delay adoption of Dale Seymour for at least one year until the process can be revised to include more than just people committed to NSF funded materials, and the community is given a chance to reach a true consensu on adoption of controversial NCTM NSF "beliefs". Go ahead and get Scott Forseman. Please inform me by phone or email of how many of these requests you can accomodate. arthur hu 425-814-2183 From: "gayle cloud" To: arthurhu@halcyon.com Date sent: Fri, 7 May 1999 12:11:14 +0000 Subject: Re: [education-consumers] STOP INVENTED MATH IN LAKE WASHINGTON Send reply to: cloud9@pe.net Priority: normal Arthur, I am a parent in Riverside. My 7th grade daughter has Dale Seymour--and no other text. The board approved it over a couple of parent objections. Now they say they did with the understanding the texts would be supplemental--baloney. My older two boys had CPM. I'd hate to say which is lousier. I use Saxon at home as I can, but we're a pretty busy family. Armita, the reporter, did a ggod job. Unfortunately our math is still lousy--most parents complain among themselves. Few take action. Gayle Cloud Riverside, CA ----------------- It's now official. Only 4 weeks after a dozen parents were shown the "marvelous" new "Investigations" math series, it has been commited to by the textbook committee and school board. The textbook committee, and likely the school board approved it with NO discussion or debate; Julie Goldsmith, the reform-meister said that there will be NO debate on math, NO debate about the new report cards, (a similar system has just been thrown out by outraged Federal Way parents) and NO debate about the new OBE and School To Work graduation requirements (which were so popular in Littleton Colorado, the parents threw out the entire school board in 1993) How can so many parents in the land of Micrsoft and high tech be so clueless about bad education? How many people support the idea of a math system that does NOT teach how to add or subtract with carry or borrow in favor of giving kids one day to "invent" their own ways of knowing? At least Plano Texas and Portland Oregon parents have enough of a clue to organize some opposition, but there is only ONE voice, mine in all of Lake Washington against this madness. What will it take to wake up Lake Washington parents as to the true nature of education reform, and the Soviet style policy making happening in Redmond where little or no dissent is tolerated.