Monday, 2/7/05
Let_Rapp_02-07-05.doc Bill Munch
1 Peabody Circle
Penfield, NY 14526
H: 388-1322
W(Kodak): 722-1886
e-mail: penfieldocm@yahoo.com
Ms. Mary Rapp
Asst. Superintendant, Penfield Schools
Penfield, NY
W: 249-5708
e-mail: Mary_Rapp@penfield.monroe.edu
RE: Request that Penfield Administration Allow All Penfield Students a Choice in their Math Program
Mary,
I wanted to take this opportunity to let you know the status of the Penfield parent group who feels there are
severe issues with Penfield’s new math programs. I will be forwarding this e-mail to our parent group separate
from the email you receive, which now is at about 60 families (120 parents, and 120+ Penfield students)
Since our 1/14/05 meeting, our parent group has had an opportunity to review what was discussed in our
meeting, review what has happened around the country, and review the experiences with our children. Many in
our group are convinced that these new “investigative math programs” are the wrong way to teach math. These
include “Investigations” in the elementary schools, “Connected Math” in the middle school, and “Core Plus” in
the high school. Most in our parent group also feel that there is nothing more to be learned from the Penfield
administrators putting together focus groups, or similar meetings that review the positive aspects of the new
math programs.
The reason we parents have issues with this program is because we strongly feel that the concept of allowing
our children to develop math concepts on their own (as a result of “investigations”) with limited to no reference
material, and never being taught mathematical methods/concepts won’t work. We feel it won’t work because it
is not likely students will come up with ideas that some of the most brilliant mathematicians in the world have
taken centuries to develop. Whatever they might learn is a much smaller subset of what it is that they could
learn by being taught methods first, given sample problems second, then allowed to work on sample problems
next. This leaves them ill prepared for college math, especially those choosing to enter technical fields. It is
absolutely appalling that teachers are not being allowed to teach students basic mathematical concepts (even
when asked by students), and students have little or no access to reference material on how to solve problems.
This anger about the new math programs runs very deep in many, many families throughout Penfield. Some
have taken their students and put them in private schools. Some are considering putting their students in private
schools. Many, many parents have either hired tutors, or are tutoring students themselves, with tutoring
expenses exceeding multiple thousands of dollars ($8,000 in the case of one family). We are also hearing of
parents who are not buying homes in Penfield because of this new math program.
Our concerns with these new math programs, are also corroborated based on what other cities and states
throughout the U.S. have and are doing to remove these “fuzzy” math programs, as well as what national
experts are saying are issues with this program (see attached references). Here are some of the references that
we feel are significant:
(1) The NRC (National Research Council) has described these math programs as unproven and
experimental (Ref (12)).
(2) The U.S. Dept. of education has found no studies on “Connected Math” that meet evidence standards
(Ref (19)).
(3) The history of what happened in both California and Texas duplicates what is going on in Penfield (Ref
(Ref. (9)). NOTE: This is a long pdf file (59 pages)…but it brings up some very interesting points,
which I have highlighted in Appendix D.
Our biggest hope as a parent group is that the new New York state standards are such that these new math
programs will have to be removed from Penfield.
So, here is what we are asking. We are asking Penfield administration to allow all Penfield students the ability
to choose the type of math that they take, one option being a skills based, problem solving (traditional)
curriculum in which concepts are taught, examples are modeled, and sample problems are reviewed based on
individual practice. We obviously would ask that this be done with student, parent, and teacher input.
If the Penfield administration will not be allowing all Penfield children to make a choice in the math program
that they can take, we will continue this week working to create a petition asking that all students be allowed a
choice in the math that they take. We are working with parents, teachers, and people in other communities who
have fought this program so that we get the wording right. In about 2 weeks or so, we should have the petition
completed, and we will then “take to the streets” and get as many signatures as possible of all Penfield voters
(18 and over), then take this petition with our concerns to the Penfield School Board (this could happen as early
as about 6 weeks from now). We would hope to get at least about 500 – 1000 signatures on our petition .
I would more than like to talk this over this week if you have time. If you would like to meet, I am available
after 4:30 PM most days. Our parent concerns are very real, and we would ask for your consideration on this
matter.
Bill Munch
Coordinator of Penfield Parent Group Against the New Math Programs
Appendix A, Part 1: 1/24/05 E-mail from Macria Barrett to a Penfield Parent describing the History of
Penfield’s New Math Programs
NOTE: For those not familiar with the term, “differentiation” means having students with different abilities in
the same classroom.
From:
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2005 9:45 AM
Subject: Math Initiative
I am writing in response to your recent inquiry.
Apparently I misinterpreted the announcement about the $2.4 million Grant and my minutes
were misleading. The U of R received the grant and Penfield was a part of the consortium
that contributed to the development of the grant. But we didn't receive any dollars of
that grant money from the Federal government. The funds were given to U of R and used to
provide professional development for the greater Rochester area, including
Several suburban districts and the Genesee Valley BOCES.
Regarding Board approval of the math initiative. Board approval is not needed for
instructional programs. The Board does approve new courses after examining the proposed
learning outcomes; however, our math courses remained as determined by state standards.
The genesis of investigative math came from trying to develop a more rigorous math
program and to increase student achievement.
The timeline for advancing math in Penfield is as follows:
Pre and up to 1999: A committee was formed and math standards and teaching practices
were studied.
1999-2000: Training in math pedagogy
2000-2001: Pilot programs in grades 6, 7, 8
2001-2002: 2 units in grades 3 - 8, Pilot program in grade 9
2002-2003: 2 units in kindergarten, 3 units in grades 1-3, 4 units in grades 4 -8
2003-2004: 2 units in kindergarten, 3 units in grades 1-3, 5 units in grade 4, 6 units
in grades 6 -8
2004-2005: 4 units in kindergarten to Grade 3, 5 units in grade 3, 6 units in grade 4, 5
units +Differentiation in Grade 5, 6 units +Differentiation in Grade 6, 6 units Grades 7-
8
2005-2006: 6 units in Grades K-8
I hope this information is helpful.
Sincerely,
Marcia Barrett
Asst. to Superintendent/District Clerk
Penfield Central School District
Phone: 585-249-5702 Fax: 585-248-8412
Appendix A, cont.: Dr. Susan Gray’s Presentation Figure to the Penfield School Board, 12/7/04 (not all slides
presented): “Math Program Data Analysis”
Figure A.1: “History of Advancing Mathematics in Penfield”
Figure A.2: HS Math Regents History: Courses I, II, and III and Math A, AB
Penfield Parent Concern – The graph on the left, PHS Math Regents, compares the results from Coures I, II,
and III….to…Math A and Math B. You can’t make this comparison since Math A and Math B tests are scaled,
and Course I, II, and III are not:
Figure A.3: PHS Math Accdeleration Survey
Penfield Parent Concerns: A survey from 11 parents and 51 students in a school district of about 5000
students should not be reported to the School Board…it is statistically insignificant.
Figure A.4: NYS Proposed Math Standards
Penfield Parent Concerns: “Initial Analysis: we’ll have to realign and adjust parts of the curriculum, not the
pedagogy or conceptual base.” This leads us to believe the Penfield Administrators have already decided to
continue with Core Plus.
Appendix B: History of Concerns with Penfield’s New Math Program
For those receiving this email that may not be up to date, I have included this appendix to list what has
happended to date. Also, for those not familiar with what the parent group has been doing, here is the status of
what has happened:
12/7/04: Dr. Susan Gray made a presentation at the Penfield School board meeting, part of which
was a “Math Program Data Analysis”
1/4/05: A flyer was passed out to students/parents to try to find out how many had real concerns
with Penfield’s new math programs
1/14/05: The Munch family met with Mary Rapp for 2 ½ hrs to review parent concerns including:
Lack of an honest review of the issues with the program
Initimidation of teachers, parents and students that show any opposition to the program
100+ pages of reviews citing real issues with the program
A concern that many other localities across the U.S. have and are having the same discussions
(including the entire State of California, the entire state of Utah, and the entire state of Texas).
Out of this 1/14/05 meeting can a proposal from Mary that a plan would be setup to review the
issues, including such things as smaller focus groups for concerned parents.
Late Jan, 05: Tenured Teachers from Penfield High School sent a letter to the Penfield School board
saying they had many concerns with the Core Plus math program.
Appendix C: Flyer that was passed out starting 1/4/5 to solicit parent support against Penfield’s new math
programs:
Do you feel that Core Plus is the wrong way to teach math?
If so, parents of Penfield students are in the process of collecting a list of names of other parents and students
(and their e-mail addresses) that feel this way. The more people we can get on a list, the more likely we will be
able to make a change. Our goal is to get at least 300 – 500 names. If you would like to see the Core Plus
program changed back to more traditional math teaching methods, please send an e-mail to:
penfieldocm@yahoo.com
Include in this e-mail:
(a) at least one Parent Name,
(b) at least one student name, and
(c) a phone number.
Our expectation is to use this list of e-mail addresses to be able to function as a group, which might entail a
request to get more names of people, for a letter writing campaign, a request to attend school board meetings,
etc. This e-mail list will not be sent or used for any other purpose other than to fight the Core Plus Math
program at Penfield. If you would like a good reference that is very critical of the Core Plus math program, go
to the following web page:
http://www.math.msu.edu/~hill/HillParker5.pdf
Please pass this notice to anyone that also feels Core Plus is the wrong way to teach math. If you have
questions, call Bill Munch at (585)-388-1322.
Appendix D: Some of the Issues brought up in Ref (19): “Chapter 13 National Science Foundation Systemic
Initiatives: How a small amount of federal money promotes ill-designed mathematics and science programs in
K-12 and undermines local control of education”
Page 319:
“Ability grouping of students is identified as harmful to student learning. Cooperative grouping (where
students teach one another), as well as group grading, is recommended. Teachers are advised to
encourage students to use calculators (because technology removes the necessity for students to learn
supposedly low-level skills). The use of concrete manipulatives is encouraged to augment the use of
mathematical symbols in every grade level. Teachers are discouraged from providing students with
correct answers or asking them to seek correct answers. And teachers are exhorted to avoid presenting
mathematics as any sequence of mathematical knowledge or skills. As a resource for curriculum, only
the specific mathematics programs developed by NSF are listed.”
Page 320:
“It also identifies the instructional methods teachers should use. The instructional section begins with an
admonition against rote memorization, mathematical rules, mathematical definitions, and mathematical
formulas, and a commendation for constructivist learning. Calculators are praised for removing
computational burdens. Cooperative groups and investigative projects are identified as important
classroom strategies. The section concludes with a warning against teaching mathematics as a linear
progression of topics and skills, thereby dismissing centuries of carefully constructed systems of
mathematics developed by the best minds of every culture.”
Page 326:
“Systemic reform is eroding the ability of parents to participate in informed ways in local school
decisions as well. In early 1998, a group of parents in Plano asked their local school board for
permission to withdraw their children from the Connected Mathematics Program, a NSF-endorsed
middle school mathematics program, because the children were failing to learn basic mathematic skills.
The parents asked the district board to provide a traditional instructional alternative. When the
district board refused, parents began an extensive investigation of the Connected Mathematics Program.
They uncovered a report issued by the TEA indicating that the Connected Mathematics Program
satisfies only slightly more than half of the state requirements for grade level instruction. They also
discovered that its teacher’s manual warns that students may score lower on standardized tests of
computational skills than students in traditional classes. The parents requested data from the SSI that
would support the academic claims of the Connected Mathematics Program and were given only the
1998 scores from TAAS for schools using the program even though the program had been used by
several schools for several years. The parents then obtained records documenting the solicitation of
schools in their district by the Dana Center/SSI to implement the Connected Mathematics Program as an
experimental program and determined that their local school board had never reviewed or voted on the
program.80 The parents also discovered that statutory protections of parental rights in education would
not apply when children participate in programs sponsored by the Texas SSI. Federal law exempts NSF
from any obligation to obtain parental consent when children take part in educational experiments.81
And as an authorized agent of the Secretary of Education, the SSI is also exempt from any obligation to
obtain parental consent for collecting and releasing personally identifiable information about children.82”
REFERENCES: Reviewing Issues with NSF Math Programs
(1) Bachelis, Gregory F., Professor of Mathematics, Wayne State University, “Reform Vs. Traditional Math
Curricula: Preliminary Report On A Survey Of The Graduating Classes Of 1997 Of Andover High School And
Lahser High School, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, Concerning Their High School Math Programs And How
Well These Programs Prepared Them For College Math, http://www.math.wayne.edu/~greg/update.htm ,
Updated 11/99.
(2) Bloomfield Hills, Michigan’s Fight against core plus: http://csmonitor.com/cgi-
bin/durableRedirect.pl?/durable/2000/05/23/f-p15s1.shtml
(3) Californai’s general link reviewing math issues: http://teachmath.net/index.html?home=MathFads.html
(3a) Of general interest, click on the link at the bottom titled “AN OPEN LETTER TO US
SECRETARY OF EDUCATION, RICHARD RILEY”.
(4) “California’s Standard’s and Assessments”, a link describing how California gained political advantage…to
have Core Plus and related programs removed from the whole state:
ftp://math.stanford.edu/pub/papers/milgram/white-paper.html
(5) Gray, Lawrence F., Univ.. of Minnesota, “A sample list of errors in Core Plus Materials”:
http://www.math.umn.edu/~gray/errors.html
(6) Hill and Parker, “A study of Core-Plus students attending Michigan State University,”
http://www.math.msu.edu/~hill/HillParker5.pdf
(6) Illinois group: http://www.illinoisloop.org/research.html
(7) Klein, David, Math Seminar American Enterprise Institute, Presentation given to the American Enterprise
Institute on the NSF's role in K-12 mathematics education: http://www.csun.edu/%7Evcmth00m/aei.htm ,
March 4, 2002.
(8) Mathematically Correct - A public interest group in California: http://mathematicallycorrect.com/
(9) McKeown, Michael (Mathematically Correct); Klein, David (California State University, Los Angeles);
Patterson, Chris (Education Connection of Texas), “Chapter 13 National Science Foundation Systemic
Initiatives: How a small amount of federal money promotes ill-designed mathematics and science programs in
K-12 and undermines local control of education,” http://www.csun.edu/%7Evcmth00m/chap13.pdf c2000
(10) Milgram, R. James, Congressional testimony:
http://www.house.gov/ed_workforce/hearings/106th/ecyf/fuzzymath2200/milgram.htm , Feb. 2, 2000.
(11) Milgram, R. James – Professor, Algebraic topology, Stanford University, “Some Major Errors in the Core
Plus Math Program,” http://math.stanford.edu/ftp/milgram/analysis-of-CorePlus-literature.html , Feb. 28, 2001
(12) NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES - reveals all 13 NSF funded
mathematics programs lack scientifically valid evaluation studies. Among the programs without evidence of
effectiveness are NYC's universal elementary program Everyday Math and several others used in waivered K-
12 schools. Here is there announcement from: http://www.nap.edu/books/0309092426/html/
National Academies announcement:
"Evaluations of mathematics curricula provide important information for educators, parents, students
and curriculum developers, but those conducted to date on 19 specific curricula fall short of the
scientific standards necessary to gauge overall effectiveness, says a new report from the National
Academies' Mathematical Sciences Education Board." - Latest News From the National Academies,
May 18, 2004
(13) NSF Grant for Penfield and other Rochester Communities ($2.4+ million):
http://www.fastlane.nsf.gov/servlet/showaward?award=0227603
(14) NYCHOLD group - New York City Honest and Open Logical Debate, co-founded by Elizabeth Carson:
http://www.nychold.com/. Many links including:
(14a) “Reviews of Contemporary Mathematics in Context: Core-Plus Mathematics Project (CPMP)”, a
review of Core-Plus,” http://www.math.nyu.edu/mfdd/braams/links/cpmp.html
(14b) CBS national news spot from the NYCHOLD group:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/05/28/eveningnews/main200272.shtml
(14c) FOX new spot from the NYCHOLD group: http://www.nychold.com/transcript-fox-010422.html
(15) Raimi, Prof. emeritis, U of R: http://www.math.rochester.edu/people/faculty/rarm/
(16) Ross, David,. “Math Wars” by David Ross, a Kodak Research Labs Mathematician:
http://www.ios.org/articles/dross_math-wars.asp
(17) Sarhady, Susan, Congressional Testimony:
http://www.house.gov/ed_workforce/hearings/106th/ecyf/fuzzymath2200/sarhady.htm , Feb. 2, 2000
(18) St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Clayton (St. Louis suburb)…is allowing students to not have to take core plus:
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/stlouiscitycounty/story/BF79B46DE16144C786256F600057
066C?OpenDocument&Headline=Clayton+may+offer+traditional+math+to+high+school+students+w ;
12/04(?)
(19) U.S. Department of Education - has found no studies on “Connected Math” (out of 77 reviewed) that meet
evidence standards (http://www.whatworks.ed.gov/ then click on CMP).
(20) Wang, Tsewei, Associate Professor, Univ. of Tennessee, “A Critical Review of the New Constructivist
Math Program under Consideration for Expansion to Higher Grade Levels by the Oak Ridge School System,”
http://www.lit.net/orschools/everydaymath2.htm#References , March 5, 2001.