School Board Newsletter #59, May 31, 1999

Return to School e-mail archive directory

Subj: School Issues Newsletter #59
Date: 5/31/99 12:10:36 PM EST
From: jklagge@bev.net (Jim Klagge)

Dear Friends,

The interesting thing about being on the SB is that you never know what you'll be dealing with next. As you probably heard, the BoS did approve (by a 5-1 vote, with 1 abstention) the SB's proposal to build a new HS in the Blacksburg strand, and then renovate the current HS and the current MS as 2 MS's. I want to thank the BoS for that approval of a framework. We are now initiating the process of hiring a construction-management firm , and then an architect, to move forward with plans. Once we have plans we are happy with, we will present them to the BoS for funding. All of this remains hypothetical until money is actually appropriated for the work. The building issue is by no means resolved by the BoS approval. That was simply one important step in that direction. Please help us keep this issue in the public eye, since we will continue to need your support for getting the financing, too. I know this has been a long haul, and I appreciate the work of all those who have hung in there on this issue for so long.

(Warning: the rest of this letter is not really of general interest, but will be of special interest to those concerned about the math adoptions. Others can afford to stop reading here. Note, also: I am writing this from the perspective of a Blacksburg resident, and focusing on the issue as it has played out in Blacksburg.) Math Materials adoption: The main thing I want to address in this newsletter is the math materials adoption that is up for consideration this month. The texts will be presented to the SB for initial consideration at our meeting on June 1st. Then we plan to make decisions at our second meeting--rescheduled for June 22, and which will be held at the newly renovated Auburn Middle School. The meeting was moved from the 15th to the 22nd because some SB members were going to be out of town. And the meeting will be in Riner so we, along with the BoS, can tour the facility, which will reopen as a separate MS in the Fall. We now have public address at all of our regular meetings--and I understand people are intending to speak up. Speakers are limited to 3 minutes apiece, and the total time alloted to public address is 30 minutes, unless we decide to extend it. People do not need to sign up in advance, but they may--by calling 382-5138 and talking to the SB clerk, Anita Johnston.

This is the issue I didn't know I would be dealing with next. But now that it is an issue, I have certainly been doing a lot of homework to get up to speed on it. In additional to a lot of reading and thinking, I've had about 12 hours of meeting with various people about this. Secondary math departments around the county are making recommendations about what math texts they wish to use for the next 6 years or so. Though this might seem like an issue that could simply be left to the departments in question, the SB does have to approve text-adoptions in the county. One wouldn't think math texts would raise controversy, but they have: From some of the passion I have heard around this, you'd think it was 70 years ago and someone was proposing the teaching of evolution in the schools! There are various facets of the issue that have provoked concern:

Perhaps the biggest concern has been over the process. Though the math teachers have been familiar with and examining various material, including Core Plus and other non-traditional material for a few years, the issue has not been shared with parents for nearly as long. Each year, in March, parents who have children who are prospects to take algebra in the next year, are contacted about a meeting that will familiarize them with the material used. This year the meeting had the added dimension that the material being considered was non-traditional. Apparently the meetings in the other strands went off without a hitch, but the one at BMS became rather chaotic. I was not at this meeting, so I cannot comment first hand on the details. I do know the BMS math teachers did not feel they had a full opportunity to present the material, and I know parents did not feel their concerns were allayed. For various reasons a second meeting, at BHS, did not help matters. I hope that however things go from here, there will be more foresight from the administration about the need for full and advance information about material, especially when changes are in question; and I hope there will be more forbearance from parents that shows respect for the work of the teachers and administration in preparing to teach students.

I have heard rumors that some people think, and perhaps some teachers conveyed the feeling, that the adoption of math material is already a done deal. That is not true, as all such adoptions must be approved by the SB, and won't happen until June 22nd. However, it was natural for the teachers to talk as though things would proceed as they had planned, since such issues had never provoked such significant debate in the (recent) past. If anything, the teachers might have been more wary of the potential for debate and further consideration.

I have also heard a rumor that this whole adoption process was driven by an NSF grant. First of all, the timing of this adoption process definitely was not. As I said, we consider texbook adoption on a 6 year cycle, and it was time for secondary math. I have not looked back at the details of the grant, but the county does have a grant from the NSF to examine and get staff development on certain math materials that have been developed with funding from the NSF. Several years ago, the NSF was concerned about achievement in math and science in US schools, and wanted to look into some different ways of teaching material that would engage a broader range of students in math and science classes, and get students to think in deeper ways about what they learn. There is a variety of materials developed with NSF funds, and the grant money could be used to deepen teachers understanding of these new approaches. The grant in no way requires the system to adopt NSF material, and it can be used for any teacher that is considering using NSF material, even if only in a supplementary way. Furthermore, there is other staff development money in the county for use by math teachers in ways that have nothing to do with NSF material. Materials developed by NSF work have one or both of 2 characteristics: It is integrated and/or it approaches individual topics in different ways. Let me explain each of these aspects: Integrated material deviates from the standard division of classes into algebra I, geometry, algebra II. The idea is that these subjects are not so separable. E.g., algebraic treatment of shapes in geometry. So topics may be addressed in a different order when material is intergrated. Core Plus simply labels its first 3 courses as Core 1, 2 and 3. I have heard a rumor that BMS plans to stop teaching algebra and geometry in the MS. This sounds to people as though BMS wants to get rid of all accelerated math classes. But that is obviously a misunderstanding. IF BMS were to teach the Core Plus material in an integrated fashion, then there would be Core 1 and Core 2 offered at BMS. This does not imply that the students would not be taught algebra and geometry. (A parallel issue is how the HS's have gotten rid of World Geography in 9th grade and World History in 10th grade. This does NOT mean they are no longer teaching kids these subjects! Rather, they are being taught now in an integrated fashion, as History & Geography up to 1000AD in 9th, and History & Geography since 1000AD in 10th.)

The other aspect of some of the NSF funded material, and this includes Core Plus, is that it approaches individual topics in different ways. Indeed, anyone who has looked through the Core Plus books is immediately struck by this. A main emphasis is on students being engaged by the math and able to use the math, so material starts from this perspective. Some of class time is spent with students working in groups, and students are guided in developing formulas out of real situations that are then treated mathematically. Practice at calculation and manipulation of formulas is not emphasized. Some valuable topics are presented that get very little if any mention in traditional texts, such as data interpretation.

Two large questions that have arisen in people's minds are: Will this material work to get our students to learn math? And, why switch from the traditional approach that has served us so well? These are important questions that deserve to be answered.

Will this material work? I think some parents wonder why their children should be guinea pigs in a new experiment like this. When research is funded by NSF, it is part of the project that the research is evaluated by an impartial evaluator. Core Plus material was first used in 1993 by about 3 dozen schools. These schools were used as the basis for initial evaluation (and later improvement) of Core Plus material. On a variety of standardized tests, students in schools that used Core Plus material scored better on the whole, than control groups using traditional material. There were some trade-offs involved between understanding and calculation, but overall achievement increased. A later study has raised a lot of concerns. One of the HS's that used the material in Michigan, Andover HS, was the focus of a follow-up study by a parent who had been an opponent of the material from the start. This study was a survey of students about how they did in college after having used Core Plus in HS. The survey suggested they did quite poorly (compared to an adjacent HS that had stuck with traditional material) in college, and had a lot of damning quotations from students. This obviously got a lot of attention when it was published by R. Milgram at Stanford. Since then the survey method, which was based on self-selecting respondants' self-reports of success, has been questioned. And someone else did a study of math grades actually achieved by students from these 2 HS's at U. of Michigan in the years before and following the enrollment of Core Plus trained students. This showed that in fact Core Plus students took as hard or harder classes and achieved comparable or better grades (2.96 gpa for math classes taken by Core Plus alumni vs. 2.83 gpa for math classes from the other HS). I have summarized a bunch of material here to the best of my ability. My purpose is simply to show that Core Plus is not damaging, and there are grounds for saying it is helpful.

Apparently at the behest of some members of the BHS math department, some math and engineering faculty at VT were asked to review the Core Plus texts, and they had some negative comments that have been circulated. It is very important to understand that it was certain prof's who were consulted, and not others. The debate about traditional vs. "reformed" or non-traditional approaches to math exists at the college level as well. There is no consensus at the college level, and if I understand it right, perhaps there is even a leaning towards reform. It is certainly important to avoid the impression that college profs, or VT college profs, by consensus oppose non-traditional approaches to math. Yet this is the impression that has somehow been conveyed. You know that nationwide over the last 10 to 15 years there has been a feeling that US students do not do as well in math as they should, compared to others around the world. NSF's attempt to reform math is precisely aimed at trying to find ways to do better. Some, tradition-minded folks, think it is just a matter of making students do what they have always done, only work harder and do more of it. Reform-minded folks are trying to find other ways of engaging and deepening students' interest. Of course the new ways will seem problematic to some. And no approach is a panacea. But this seems to work, and is worth trying.

But why experiment on our students, who have been doing so well? Why switch? BMS, for example, has a 90% pass rate for Algebra I on the last SoL test. But I applaud the BMS teachers for thinking they can do even better with this approach. And the SoL tests report not only pass rates, but also "proficient" rates, which can also be improved. And there are several schools in the county that did not do nearly so well on their SoL pass rates for algebra. I'm not proposing a direct comparison, because the best math students take the algebra SoL at the MS, and the rest take it at the HS. But it is worth wondering what kind of approaches might be useful in increasing pass rates generally. This concern is what has led CHS and CMS to both want to adopt the Core Plus approach.

It is important to keep in mind that using Core Plus material would not change the curriculum, especially the state mandated SoL's for the math courses in the county. Teachers would still be responsible to that. Questions have been raised as to whether the Core Plus material sufficiently addresses all the items of the mandated curriculum. Apparently there are difference between the BMS math teachers and the BHS math teachers as to how extensive this problem is. BMS teachers have said that they would supplement the Core Plus material with some traditional material to the extent that it was needed.

What bothers me in this discussion is that there seems to be very little respect for the BMS math teachers who want to use the Core Plus material, as though either their intentions or their judgement is not to be trusted. These teachers have done very well with our students in the past, and want to do better. What more could we ask for? It especially bothers me that some parents have been asked to sign petitions directing what their children should and should not take in math classes, and that some parents have been willing to sign them. How much time have you spent thinking about what is involved in engaging and teaching math to adolescents? How much time do you think BMS teachers have spent thinking about that? Although the SoL tests are by no means developed to the point that we can rely on them for precise comparisons, it is important to know that even in math areas they are very "wordy". The SB read through last year's SoL tests at a meeting earlier this year. I specifically read all the 3rd grade tests, and also the algebra 1, geometry, and algebra 2 tests. They do not look at all like a traditional textbook looks. There are not rows of calculations or manipulations to perform. They are all story problems that require students to generate formulas and figure out what to do with them. They will require non-traditional approaches. Although I have publicly expressed qualms about some of the curricular content of SoL's, and the nature of some of the tests, and the process by which the passing scores were set, there are two aspects that I want to praise: One is that they are language oriented and require students to understand what they are doing. That makes them challenging, but that is a worthy goal. The other is that the passing rates focus our attention on how the broad range of students is doing. We cannot, in Blacksburg, just be content showing how good we are by quoting AP scores or average SAT scores, because those are skewed very much by the impressive achievements of the very best students. We have to look at how all of our students are doing. To get 70% pass rates, the key is how the 3rd quartile of students does. That is an emphasis that we are not used to.

In talking to VT math prof's it occured to me that they had managed a similar transition of teaching methods recently--Linear Algebra is now taught solely by computer at the math emporium. Of course there were those that saw this as a harmful change--how dare they stop relying on classroom lectures? But the transition was managed, and students have done as well, or better than, before. In fact, Tech did not allow (parents of) students to insist that students be able to take the course according to the standard method.

Although I have been trying to counter the passion that has been generated against the Core Plus material, I think it is also important to acknowledge some of its peculiarities. From the point of view of a parent, the texts may be unsettling. For one thing, they don't have a lot (or sometimes any) examples worked out for you. For another thing, there are no answers in the back. What this represents, I think, is a shift to continuity and student responsibility. Traditional texts often approach each topic as though it is fresh with no context. Thus, students finish a chapter and forget it, and go onto the next chapter. If a topic does recur, it is illustrated all over again. Core Plus tries to keep reusing ideas so that they become engrained. Students become responsible for remembering how to do something. Students will have a notebook that they keep through the semester where they write down how things are done. This essentially becomes part of the text material. Parents will need to know how to work with this with their students. Is it expecting too much of students? I hope it is a good kind of expectation.

I have to admit that I was disorienting when reading the Core Plus books. But I was also, slowly, impressed by how they introduced and handled issues. And I couldn't help but be struck by how engaging they were about issues that interest adolescents. I think using these texts would be a sort of experiment: they will be an experiment on parents as to whether they can handle change, and they will be an experiment on teachers as to whether they can teach in different ways. NSF realizes the burden on teachers and that is why all the staff development is being made available through grants. I think the school system needs to admit that parents will need some "staff development" if we go with this material. That partly gets back to the "process" issue that I started with, and also highlights the value of more interaction between teacher and parents than we are used to at the secondary level.

Where are we, and where do we go from here? The administration is recommending "multiple adoptions" in math, so that each school can use the material it wishes to. AMS/AHS wants to use traditional material; CMS/CHS wants to use Core Plus material; SHS/SMS department is in transition and will be sticking with traditional material since there will be some new teachers there. The problem exists in the Blacksburg strand because BMS wants to use Core Plus material and BHS does not (except perhaps as supplementary). This creates a difficulty since there would be no follow-up for the Core 3 material at the HS. If BMS were to offer courses using Core Plus material, they would apparently have to "dis-integrate" the material so that all the algebra 1 and geometry material was taught in the first 2 years. You can see here the value of having interdepartmental cooperation in the other strands. There has also been discussion of whether there could be 2 tracks at BMS--traditional and reformed--though this is not how VT math handled the linear algebra course with the math emporium. I don't know exactly what the administration will propose for handling the details of arrangements if we do endorse Core Plus as an acceptable text. (I also heard a rumor that Core Plus was not on the State's list of approved texts--but the state has no such list.) I hope you can see how complex this issue is, and how unproductive strong passions are in trying to work out what is best for our students in cases like this. If you have read this far, thanks for your attention. I am hoping we can discuss and address this issue in the county in a way that is productive for all and in a way that models for our students and children how we would like them to address difficult issues.

Jim Klagge
Chair, and District F Representative
Montogmery County School Board

email: admin@gisone.com