National Panel confirms that D11 math approach is flawed

The final report from the National Mathematics Advisory Panel is in, and once again, defenders of fuzzy mathematics instruction, including the D11 administration, are shown to be supporting a flawed curriculum.

Dora Gonzales, D11 math chair, pushes curriculum that calls for “familiarity” with math concepts instead of mastery. She pushes curriculum that uses a “spiraling” technique of teaching. In other words, students are briefly introduced to math concepts during one school year, with the hope that at some point over several years, they will become familiar with that concept due to the fact that they will briefly touch on the topic again at some future date. Gonzales and other traditional math critics claim that it is not important for students to actually master math facts and processes during their early school years. The National panel concludes that this thinking is outright wrong.

As to the issue of mastering math facts, the national panel report states: “By the end of the elementary grades, children should have a robust sense of number. This sense of number must include understanding place value, and the ability to compose and decompose whole numbers. It must clearly include a grasp of the meaning of the basic operations of addition, subtraction, multipli­cation, and division, including use of the commutative, associative, and distributive properties; the ability to perform these operations efficiently; and the knowledge of how to apply the operations to problem solving. Computational facility rests on the automatic recall of addition and related subtraction facts, and of multiplication and related division facts. It requires fluency with the standard algorithms for addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division. Fluent use of the algorithms not only depends on the automatic recall of number facts but also reinforces it.”

How about the spiraling approach that is so favored by the fuzzy math crowd? The report says this: “International studies show that high-achieving nations teach for mastery in a few topics, in comparison with the U.S. mile-wide-inch-deep curriculum. A coherent progression, with an emphasis on mastery of key topics, should become the norm in elementary and middle school mathematics curricula. There should be a de-emphasis on a spiral approach in mathematics that continually revisits topics year after year without closure.”

I published a math survey on this blog several months ago which showed that mathematicians around the world have very strong opinions about fuzzy math curriculum, and those opinions demonstrate that they do not like this new-new math. The national report says this: “Publishers must ensure the mathematical accuracy of their materials. Those involved with developing mathematics textbooks and related instructional materials need to engage mathematicians, as well as mathematics educators, in writing, editing, and reviewing these materials.”

The evidence on math is clear: D11 is not using solid curriculum, and it is not properly serving its students. Don’t expect this national report to cause any change for the better in the district, however. The administration and board members don’t pay attention to math facts or statistics. It is easier to explain away the facts than it is to face the reality that nothing short of a curriculum overhaul and good old fashioned hard work will be needed to fix the D11 math crisis.

Still Asleep at the Wheel

Anyone who has children attending D11 schools understands that math is not high on the list of priorities for the current administration or school board. Despite data showing the D11 performs miserably at teaching math as a district, administrators and board members have absolutely no interest in making any effort to reverse this course, which is damaging the ability of thousands of students to perform simple math calculations.

Carla Albers has been championing solid math curriculum for the district for several years. Her attempts to encourage the district to do right by its students have consistently fallen on deaf ears. I previously posted a letter that Carla sent to the board with an attachment from math experts from around the country. As is typical of the current crop of board members, nobody even acknowledged the letter from Carla, with the exception of Tom Strand, who was too afraid to make an issue out of the poor math performance of the district.

In an email, I asked Carla about the response she received after she made further attempts to engage the lethargic school board on the topic of math. Here is her reply:

Funny you should ask.
As you know, I wrote to the BOE and several top D-11 administrators on November 30, 2007, providing them with information from two highly qualified math experts suggesting that the program in use in the majority of D-11 elementary schools does not give students the foundational knowledge necessary to allow them to succeed at upper level math, absent outside intervention by a tutor or parent. You have posted the information I received from Dr. Jim Milgram at Stanford, and Dr. Steve Wilson at Johns Hopkins University, in a prior blog entry. I received exactly one response to this information – from Tom Strand, who thanked me for the same and indicated he would be following up on math issues.

On January 7, 2008, I re-sent this information to the board and administration, along with a note expressing disappointment that no one other than Mr. Strand seemed at all interested in the information I had provided. This time, I received one more response – from Jan Tanner. In my original email, I suggested that the BOE ask D-11 administrators to provide data showing that kids who are not expected to learn standard algorithms and who are not expected to have fluency with basic math facts without the use of a calculator, are successful in higher level math. This suggestion was in the context of the Everyday Math program which does not, in fact, teach or expect those skills. Ms. Tanner’s response was, to quote, “Frankly, I don’t intend to do that since I don’t believe that is what our math curriculum expects of students.”

After I wrote back to suggest that she read the Everyday Math teacher’s guide, which does in fact set forth those very things, she responded, and I quote, “Your original mail suggested that none of our students are taught standard arithmetic algorithms, and that none are required to have fluency and automaticity of basic facts without the aid of a calculator, and that they are not successful at higher level math. This is what I said I do not believe is happening. I do not make such sweeping statements about any curriculum used or any learning happening in Dist. 11. If you share my response with others, I trust you will not put words in my mouth and say that I have a lack of interest in this subject.”

A couple of problems with this response. First, I never suggested that no D-11 students are taught standard algorithms or required to learn basic math facts without the aid of the calculator. My entire letter, as well as the documentation from Dr. Milgram and Dr. Wilson, dealt with the factual reality of a specific program, Everyday Math. Second, Ms. Tanner disagrees with the suggestion that students in D-11 are not successful at higher level math. Apparently she doesn’t know, or perhaps doesn’t consider important, that over two thirds of D-11 eleventh graders do not score well enough to meet the college readiness benchmark for algebra established by ACT. (Per ACT, a score of 22 on the math section suggests a student is ready for college algebra) This is stunning when you consider that the normal track for D-11 students is to take algebra in 9th grade – two years before they take the ACT. Since when is 33% of our students scoring 22 or above defined as success?

This little episode is indicative of the problems that pervade D-11, and how things work now that all the board members get along and are friendly. First, most of the board members didn’t even take the time to respond to a constituent. Not only did I provide specific information as to my concerns with a widely used math program, I provided information from two PhD level mathematicians with experience in reviewing elementary math programs, and specifically Everyday Math, and who have concluded that the program mathematically cripples students. One would think that in the normal course of things, in a setting where accountability and results are important, that the information provided, at least on its face, would cause serious questions to be asked. Sadly, there is little apparent intellectual curiosity by those in charge of the district to examine why math scores drop so precipitously the longer kids stay in the district, or to explore the reasons why mathematicians across the country have been sounding the alarm about math programs such as Everyday Math. As noted by Dr.’s Milgram and Wilson, the only kids with a chance to succeed are those kids whose parents have the knowledge base to understand something is terribly wrong, and with the means to do something about it. I would add to this and note that there are teachers in the district – some of whom I know – who know how bad this program is, and who close their doors and teach kids real math that gives them real competency. Right now, unless you have a precocious math student – one who will learn no matter what the program, or one who has parents and/or teachers to help them, kids taught under Everyday Math enjoy the illusion of math competency – which illusion will end abruptly when they are required to do real math.

Below is the complete exchange of emails between Carla and Jan Tanner, one of the most most ardent opponents of improvement in D11.

From: "Carla A." carla.albers@comcast.net
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2008 10:47:49 -0700
To: "'Carla A.'" , "'BISHOP, TERRY N.'" , , , , , , , Cc: , , 'Shari Griffin' shari.griffin@gazette.com
Subject: RE: D-11 Math Education

Dear BOE members, Dr. Bishop, et. al.:
I am resending the below email and information as I had only one response to my original email – from Director Strand. I would have hoped to see a little more interest by board members and administrators to the information provided. Both Dr. Milgram and Dr. Wilson have impeccable math credentials, and both teach mathematics at elite institutions. Furthermore, both have been actively involved at the national level in reviewing and studying elementary math education, its failures, and the resulting lack of students entering the science and mathematics fields. Given that fully 2/3 of D-11 11th graders fail to meet the mathematics college readiness score on ACT, I am increasingly frustrated by the apparent lack of concern, interest and desire to figure out what we need to be doing better with respect to our mathematics education. D-11 is getting ready to open a math and science magnet school at East. It is my concern that unless D-11 spends the time to figure out why kids can’t do upper level math with proficiency, it is doomed to open a school which will fail yet again at its supposed mission of educating the students of District 11. I can only hope you will prove me wrong.
Sincerely,
Carla Albers


-----Original Message-----
From: Jan Tanner [mailto:tannerjj@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 12:30 PM
To: Carla A.Cc: Tami Hasling; Terry Bishop
Subject: Re: D-11 Math Education
Ms Albers,
I apologize for not acknowledging you correspondence. I see now that you expected a response to your original mail. I read no question to us in your mail, so I don’t know what you are asking of us, rather than suggesting that we ask administration “to provide data showing that students who are not taught the standard arithmetic algorithms, and who are not required to have fluency and automaticity of basic facts without the aid of a calculator, are successful at higher level math.” Frankly, I don’t intend to do that since I don’t believe that is what our math curriculum expects of students. I believe that our future Math and Science Magnet School will succeed in creating interest in math and science that is not evident in our students today. I also believe that our elementary schools will begin to focus on preparing students for this school, and whether students attend the magnet school or not, they will benefit from this preparation no matter what school they attend.
Jan Tanner
School District 11Board of Education
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE - This e-mail, and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages attached to it, may contain information regarding students or staff of District 11 that is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you must not read and that any disclosure, copying, printing, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify the sender by telephone or return e-mail and delete the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. Thank you.

From: "Carla A." carla.albers@comcast.net
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 12:59:33 -0700
To: 'Jan Tanner' tannerjj@gmail.com
Cc: 'Tami Hasling' , 'Terry Bishop' , "'Carla A.'" Subject:
RE: D-11 Math Education
Ms. Tanner:
Thank you for your response. In the future, perhaps you might consider responding as Tom Strand did, i.e., to thank me for the information which I provided to the board. It’s an easy way to let constituents know you are actually reading their emails. It is unfortunate that you seem unwilling to listen to the viewpoints of two imminently qualified mathematicians as to the harm Everyday Math is doing not only to the students of D-11, but to students nationwide. There is a lack of interest in math and science precisely because students are not being taught the foundations necessary to succeed later, which becomes readily apparent when they reach middle and high school and simply cannot do the math. In light of district scores on CSAPs and ACTs, I had hoped for a little intellectual curiosity as to why that is. I will share your response with others who are concerned, as I am, about the seeming lack of interest by those in leadership positions to address the looming crisis described by Dr. Milgram in the letter provided for your information.
Sincerely,
Carla Albers
p.s. To the extent you do not “believe” that Everyday Math does not expect fluency in the basic operations without the aid of a calculator, I suggest you read the teacher’s manual. There, it is noted that time in class should not be wasted on pencil and paper calculations because answers can be found “quickly and easily” with a calculator. The facts are there if you choose to look for them.

-----Original Message-----
From: Jan Tanner [mailto:tannerjj@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 1:22 PM
To: Carla A.
Cc: Tami Hasling; Terry Bishop
Subject: Re: D-11 Math Education

Ms Albers,
Please do not take the liberty of reading anything more into my response than what I wrote. I did not indicate I am unwilling to consider viewpoints of others. Do not presume that I did not read the opinions you shared with us, nor presume that I am not concerned about our students’ success in math. In your post script you make an incorrect assumption. I did not say that I don’t believe “Everyday Math does not expect fluency in the basic operations without the need of a calculator.” Your original mail suggested that none of our students are taught standard arithmetic algorithms, and that none are required to have fluency and automaticity of basic facts without the aid of a calculator, and that they are not successful at higher level math. This is what I said I do not believe is happening. I do not make such sweeping statements about any curriculum used or any learning happening in Dist. 11.If you share my response with others, I trust you will not put words in my mouth and say that I have a lack of interest in this subject.
Jan Tanner

-----Original Message-----
From: Carla A. [mailto:carla.albers@comcast.net]
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 1:41 PM
To: 'Jan Tanner'Cc: 'Tami Hasling'; 'Terry Bishop'; 'Carla A.'
Subject: RE: D-11 Math Education

Ms. Tanner:
In your effort to backtrack, you forgot to read my original email. It is quite clear that it was directed towards a specific program, Everyday Math. The correspondence from Dr. Milgram and Dr. Wilson referenced a specific program, Everyday Math. You will find no language in my email which remotely resembles what you have just stated that it did.
The fact is that Everyday Math does not teach the standard algorithms as their focus algorithms. It never introduces the standard algorithm for long division. The teachers’ manuals do in fact suggest that students should not spend a lot of time with pencil and paper calculations because they can use a calculator to find the answer. Calculators are introduced in kindergarten. The majority of D-11 elementary schools use Everyday Math. Over 65% of this district’s 11th graders don’t meet the college readiness benchmark for math on ACT. (Do you really want to argue that our kids are successful at higher level math?) Those are the facts, whether you like them or not. Pretending they aren’t what they are will certainly do nothing to advance the education of kids in this district.
I would not presume to put words in your mouth. I will share your response verbatim. It speaks for itself.
Sincerely,
Carla Albers

Wow. There are several observations that can be made about Tanner’s replies. First of all, she apparently has no idea how poorly D11 students are being taught in math. This lack of interest in her own district’s performance is not surprising in someone whose agenda has nothing to do with educating kids.

Tanner claims now that the goal of the district’s elementary schools will be to prepare kids to have an interest in the new math and science magnet school. Stop being so ambitious, Ms. Tanner. Why bother preparing kids for life as an engineer or scientist when we can make the goal a bit less daunting by preparing kids for the magnet school instead?

The big problem with the math magnet school is that D11 does not have anyone in administration who has any concept on how to teach math. What value will the magnet school bring to the district when we can be certain that the same fuzzy math concepts will be taught – the same math that is failing to interest or instruct our kids today? If a curriculum is not working today, why would it work just because you now call a school a magnet school? If the district is not going to use fuzzy math at the magnet so that students will actually learn math, then why on earth would the administration continue to push the failed math programs on the rest of the district?

It is apparent by Tanner’s replies that she and her board colleagues have no interest in improving D11’s math education. She doesn’t even know the data in her own district, yet she pretends that a math magnet will be the cure-all for the entire district. This from a woman who claimed that “attention to detail” was actually one of her strengths.

Sidebar: Notice that Tanner, an elected public official, has a postscript attached to her emails that warns people NOT to distribute her emails. Talk about openness in government...Tanner's emails are public record, and she knows it. Elected officials who do not have the interest of their constituents at heart often try to keep their views hidden from public view.

Where’s D11?

On February 27th, anti-reform Gazette reporter Shari Chaney wrote an article about the recognition that had been bestowed upon 39 Colorado schools by the Colorado Department of Education. This recognition was due to the fact that certain schools had done an outstanding job in closing the achievement gap between white and minority students.

D11 Superintendent Terry Bishop likes to discuss the fact that the minority population in D11 is increasing rapidly. He uses this fact as an excuse for why D11 continues to stagnate academically. Bishop is of the belief that minority children do not have the same capacity to learn as do white children.

While it is fashionable for public school administrators and labor union leaders across the country to blame a child’s skin color for his or her inability to learn basic academic facts, some schools are working to make a difference in the lives of children despite their skin color. According to the Gazette article, of the 10 schools in the Pikes Peak region that are closing the achievement gap, none of those schools are from D11.

This news is absolutely shocking. D11 Vice Superintendent for Something Mary Thurman has made it crystal clear that she cares. She doesn’t simply care, but she cares about children. Not only that, but Terry Bishop has expanded his central administrative staff to record numbers once again, even revitalizing the purple packet program to get even more old buddies onto the payroll. With all of these administrative geniuses running around the D11 grounds, how could D11 not be keeping up with such district powerhouses as D2?

How about the school board? Other than the constant bickering that takes place between John Gudvangen and Charlie Bobbitt at each board meeting, the board members are madly in love with one another. We were told that a school board that knew how to love was the magic cure for an ailing district. How can D11 be continuing to fail its constituents? Tom Strand promised us that if only he was re-elected, we would see ideas dripping from the dais each and every board meeting. Bob Null promised us that the community would be a better place if only the citizens would elect him to something – anything. Tami Hasling even asked a coherent question once and Sandra Mann hasn’t received a DUI enroute to a board meeting yet, so how could D11 NOT be making the type of progress that was promised us.

Notice what some of the districts are doing to improve the academic delivery in their schools. Teachers are actually collaborating over lunch in Widefield D3. Read your copy of the Master Agreement and see if your D11 teachers are allowed to do that. Some teachers are even collaborating while pulling hall duty, another no-no in your D11 schools.

“High expectations” are high on the list of common traits among improving schools, and that is where D11 is in trouble. Students at certain schools simply are not expected to do well, and they live up to their low expectations. Good grades are handed out for poor work, and kids are passed onto the next grade whether they have mastered the work in their current grade or not. At one of your “good” schools, Doherty High School, rather than enforcing rules and expecting students to behave, the administration painted lines on the walls that designate “academic areas,” the inside of these areas being where students really, really had to obey the rules or else…As one sharp student observed: “This is a school building; I thought the whole thing should be an academic area.” Not in this district, apparently.

As D11 prepares to pass the proverbial bucket to ask for more money to fund its increasing bureaucracy, ask yourself what it has accomplished with the ½ billion that it already has. Ask yourself why D3 and D2 and D49 can continue to improve while D11 continues to stagnate, even with a board that is all about the love.