Schools Chancellor Joel Klein's Children First inititiative is to produce by January, 2003, a blueprint or agenda for reform of New York City public schools with focus on effective instruction. I have offered my early critical perspective on the initiative in a Web article, Predictions for Chancellor Joel Klein's Children First Initiative, and an associated letter to Schools Chancellor Joel Klein, both of November 26, 2002. For ongoing reviews and comments concerning Children First please see Chancellor Joel Klein's "Children First" New Standard Curriculum for NYC Public Schools.
As part of the Children First initiative several working groups were set up at the NYC Department of Education (DOE). For mathematics education the initiative has a Numeracy Working Group, with Mr. Evan Rudall as Chair. The names of other members of the working group are not available to the public. As did other associates of NYC HOLD, I contributed Survey responses for Children First Numeracy Working Group. Some members of NYC HOLD met with Chair Evan Rudall (only) on December 11, 2002, in a meeting organized by Mr. Rudall and Elizabeth Carson. We provided a set of Talking Points for that meeting.
As a follow-up to the meeting with Mr. Evan Rudall on December 11 and 12 I wrote two further letters addressing some specific curricula. In the first letter I provide positive recommendations with respect to the Dolciani series (and Jurgensen) for middle school and high school. In the second letter I point to criticisms of the programs UCSMP Everyday Mathematics (Everyday Math) and College Preparatory Mathematics (CPM). The second letter also contains as an appendix a letter by Professor Wayne Bishop of California State University at Los Angeles to the Pittsburgh Public Schools Board of Education.
In the conclusion to my second letter I express my continued frustration over the Children First process, and I emphasize that (contrary to that process) the curricular decisions for New York City should be made in close cooperation with subject matter experts.
From braams Wed Dec 11 14:40:33 2002
To: erudall@nycboe.net
Subject: Textbooks
Dear Evan,
After our meeting this morning Elizabeth [Carson] speculated that you had wanted to hear more about specific curricula other than Singapore. I am sorry that I missed that. I would have stressed the qualities of the Dolciani series for middle school and high school. The series is published by McDougal Littell and the books include a Pre-Algebra course, an "Algebra I Structure and Method" and an "Algebra II and Trigonometry Structure and Method". I have those books and they are an impressive series. There is also a superb more advanced Dolciani, "Modern Introductory Analysis" (pre-calculus), but I don't know if it is in print. I own it and I do see references to it being in current use in schools, but I can't find it in the catalog.
From pre-algebra through pre-calculus, Dolciani would be an excellent choice. I believe that the associated geometry text is by Jurgensen, Brown, and Jurgensen, but I have not reviewed that one personally. It has received positive reviews from people that I trust.
Concerning the California adoptions you should be aware that there is one program that is on the list of the approved programs against the unaminous advice of the content review panel. That controversial program is "Concepts and Skills Algebra". I would urge you to stay away from the Concepts and Skills series, and otherwise respect the work of the California adoptions process for grades K-8.
Yours,
Bas Braams
--
Bastiaan J. Braams (Research Associate Professor)
Dept. of Mathematics - Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
New York University - 251 Mercer Street - New York, NY 10012-1185
Email: braams@math.nyu.edu
Web: www.math.nyu.edu/mfdd/braams/
From braams Thu Dec 12 13:03:07 2002
To: erudall@nycboe.net
Subject: Everyday Mathematics and College Preparatory Mathematics
Dear Evan,
This is a follow-up to our discussion yesterday, and also to my response to your numeracy working group questionnaire. You have seen our positive recommendations regarding mathematics curricula (I named specifically Saxon, Singapore, Sadlier, Dolciani, and other series on the CA approved list except Concepts and Skills), and you have seen that our group named several completely unacceptable ones (TERC, CMP, IMP, ARISE).
I think it useful to address here two other curricula: Everyday Mathematics (EM) for grade school, and College Preparatory Mathematics (CPM) for middle school.
Everyday Mathematics was reviewed around the time of an earlier California adoption cycle. Here are three annotated Web links for that program (from a page of meta-reviews linked at the NYC HOLD Web site, which you know).
Mathematically Correct Second Grade Review of UCSMP Everyday Mathematics (1999). Part of a collection of comparative reviews of 2nd, 5th and 7th grade mathematics texts. These are detailed reviews with specific coverage of all the content areas expected at that grade level, and the reader is urged to study the original. The overall evaluation of Mathematically Correct for the Second Grade Everyday Mathematics program is captured here. "The overall evaluation of this program is mediocre, but that is far from telling the whole story. It is unusual in that some topics, such as perimeter and measurement, are covered quite well while other topics, notably addition and subtraction of whole numbers and to a lessor extent the work with time, are given a fairly weak treatment. The result appears to be related to the overall program philosophy which chooses to emphasize ideas and calculators and even mental arithmetic but de-emphasizes matters that require extensive practice and the use of algorithms. Multiplication, which is in the early stages in grade 2, is covered well given that the expectations are mostly conceptual and not intending to lead to mastery (or even close to it) at this level." www.mathematicallycorrect.com/books2g.htm.
Mathematically Correct Fifth Grade Review of UCSMP Everyday Mathematics (1999). See the general comments under the Second Grade review. Again, the reader is urged to go the MC original. They conclude: "The overall evaluation of this program was next-to-lowest among the fifth grade programs in this review. The program comes across with the flavor of a survey of some rather sophisticated areas of mathematics for fifth-grade students without support for the development of topics or student mastery of content. This unusual combination of features makes it difficult to imagine a fifth-grade circumstance where such a program could be recommended." www.mathematicallycorrect.com/books5h.htm
Concerned Parents of Reading (MA) to the State Board of Education. A letter of Feb 13, 2000 from Dr. Bob Mandell on behalf of a group of parents concerned about the implementation of the "Chicago Math Program" Everyday Mathematics in their local Elementary School. The letter includes an analysis of declining test scores on Stanford-8 and Stanford-9 in the school. www.mathematicallycorrect.com/cpr.htm
With regard to Everyday Mathematics you should also be aware of the severe conflict over its position in the Pittsburgh public schools. I append a letter by Professor Wayne Bishop to the Pittsburgh Public Schools Board of Education in which he provides his very informed criticism of Everyday Mathematics and related programs, touching also upon their claimed research base in Pittsburgh. Professor Bishop was later called to testify before the PPS Board, and I would urge you to contact him for further information.
The other program that I want to address here is College Preparatory Mathematics, especially its middle school program, Foundations for Algebra. Here are some annotated links for critical reviews of CPM.
CPM Algebra 1 Content Review. The CPM Algebra 1 program was submitted to the California Content Review Panel for statewide adoption in 2001, but this submission was withdrawn. Professor Wayne Bishop, a member of the 1999 and 2001 Content Review Panels, performed an unofficial evaluation of the Algebra 1 program. His conclusion: "[M]ost of the program is below the specified standards level and there is too much of an assumption that work will be done in teams. Although the publisher claims that all standards are met, several are clearly not met and several more identified herein as met are, in fact, not adequately met. Finally, there is a systemic misconception as to what is meant by logical argument in mathematics. If a statement looks to be true, students are told to put it into their "Tool Kit", then to be available in all settings of study and assessment thereafter." www.mathematicallycorrect.com/cpmwb.htm
Math Problems: Why the U.S. Department of Education's recommended math programs don't add up, by David Klein (ASBJ, Apr 2000). About CPM Prof. Klein writes: "[...] The principal technique in this series is the so-called guess and check method, which encourages repeated guessing of answers over the systematic development of standard mathematical techniques. Because of the availability of calculators that can solve equations, the introduction to the series explains that CPM puts low emphasis on symbol manipulation and that CPM differs from traditional mathematics courses both in the mathematics that is taught and how it is taught. In one section, students watch a candle burn down for an hour while measuring its length versus the time and then plotting the results. In a related activity, students spend a whole class period on the athletic field making human coordinate graphs. These activities are typical of the time sacrificed to simple ideas that can be understood more efficiently through direct explanation. But in CPM, direct instruction is systematically discouraged in favor of group work." www.mathematicallycorrect.com/usnoadd.htm
Open Letter to Richard Riley. CPM was one of the programs designated "Exemplary" by the United States Department of Education in 1999. The designation of this and several other "fuzzy math" programs as Promising or Exemplary gave rise to this open letter that was endorsed by over 200 professional mathematicians and scientists. mathematicallycorrect.com/nation.htm#doesham
CPM Miscellaneous Links at Mathematically Correct. www.mathematicallycorrect.com/programs.htm#cpm
CPM Miscellaneous Links at TeachMath.Net. teachmath.net/MathFads.html#cpm
With regard to Everyday Mathematics, and also CMP and IMP, it may be very useful for you to pay close attention to the curriculum conflict that has waged in Pittsburgh. I append a letter of Professor Wayne Bishop regarding mathematics instruction there. Prof. Bishop was later asked to testify before the Pittsburgh Public Schools Board of Education.
In conclusion I want to express my frustration over having to guess what the Children First initiative and your working group might be thinking of and trying to provide advice on such a tentative basis. As we discussed yesterday and as was expressed in our talking points, it is very important that the curricular decisions for New York City be made in close cooperation with content matter experts, especially mathematicians and scientists from the City's universities.
Yours Sincerely,
Bas Braams
--
Bastiaan J. Braams (Research Associate Professor)
Dept. of Mathematics - Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
New York University - 251 Mercer Street - New York, NY 10012-1185
Email: braams@math.nyu.edu
Web: www.math.nyu.edu/mfdd/braams/
Appendix
Letter to Ms Colaizzi and the Pittsburgh Public Schools Board of Education.
(Letter by Professor Wayne Bishop, California State University at Los Angeles, regarding mathematics in the Pittsburgh public schools)
The opinions expressed in this page are strictly those of the page author. The contents of this page have not been reviewed or approved by New York University.