This was a relatively short meeting. The School Board has submitted a budget to the Board of County Supervisors. So they now have some time to catch their breath. However, nature abhors a vacuum. So discussions of Math Investigations (MI) and the Capital Improvement Program helped to fill the empty air.
Citizen Comments
The first speaker spoke in support of the school division’s traditional schools, Pennington School and Mary G. Porter Traditional School. He advocates, and he was encouraged by the School Board’s willingness to consider a traditional high school.
The next three speakers spoke against the MI program.
The first said that the MI program does not help teach complex math abstractions. She said that while MI program does help students understand the concept of fractions, it does not help students learn the formulas for manipulating fractions.
The second speaker was Greg Barlow, now a frequent speaker to the board on the subject of the MI Program. When Barlow started off, he seemed a bit cocky. The board probably did not appreciate being told that he had given them a reading assignment. However, it soon became apparent that Barlow’s cockiness was a cover for frustration. It would appear he had hoped board members would contact him about material he had dropped off with them (not likely when the board is working on the budget). In addition, Barlow may also have been irritated by the $429.38 fee he paid to fulfill a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. He had had to pay to find out how the Prince William school division picked its math text (the basis for the MI program). Barlow said this material reaffirmed his previous statement. Out of a total of six competitors, the math text the PWC school division selected does the worse job of teaching the SOLs. In particular, this text is not approved for the fifth grade. In addition, Barlow said the MI program does not teach either long division or how to determine the lowest common denominator. These concepts are needed to learn Algebra.
Alexis Miller also spoke on the MI program. She kept her speech simple and helped to soften Barlow’s apparent irritation. She thanked board members for their willingness to work on and resolve the problems related to the MI Program.
Superintendent’s Proposed Capital Improvements Program FY2009-2018
This was an information briefing on how the school division schedules facilities renewal. Because of diminishing budget growth, the School Board has become concerned about the slippage of building maintenance. In particular, Lucas was concerned about Godwin Middle School which has slipped from 2009 to 2011. Until one gets into the details, this problem sounds worse than it is. The briefing slides can be downloaded from the meeting agenda on April 2nd from here.
Superintendent’s Time
Walts spoke about a large grant that the school division has just received. The Potomac News has since then reported the story.
An $856,541 grant means that about 100 Prince William School teachers will have to go to summer school, but Kenneth Bassett, the Prince William County Schools supervisor of social studies, said they won’t mind.
The U.S. Department of Education recently announced that it awarded the three-year grant that will pay for the teachers who want to bone up on their American history. (from here)
Board Time
Otaigbe congratulated Superintendent Walts for his efforts to make the school division look good. He referenced an article in the Potomac News.
Fortunately, the supervisors have slightly more to work with. The school system revised its budget to reflect $12.5 million in savings and the anticipated revenue shortfalls from the falling housing market are slightly less than expected.
We commend Prince William County schools superintendent Steven L. Walts for coming forward with the budget cuts that helped make a compromise on the advertised tax rate possible. He was not asked to or forced to, but his action has also helped to keep the county government on track. (from here)
Covington thanked the citizens speaking against the MI program for bringing their concerns to the board.
Lattin spoke in defense of the MI program. He pointed out that the MI program is accepted without controversy in the five elementary schools he has visited. He conceded that the MI program’s text does not cover all the SOLs. However, supplementary material is provided that covers those SOLs.
Mirroring what MI opponents have said about teachers afraid to speak against the MI program, Lattin said that he had spoken to parents who are supportive of the MI program. He said these parents are afraid to speak publicly about their support for the math program.
Lattin also emphasized that he has considerable experience on math instruction both as a teacher and as a parent. He said he had successfully used MI techniques as a teacher. In addition, he has observed the benefits of MI techniques when his own nine children received math instruction. His older children, taught solely with traditional math instruction techniques, had more trouble understanding math than his younger children, taught with MI techniques.
Lattin said that Walts intended remedy for complaints about math program is to combine MI techniques with traditional instruction techniques. This approach would allow teachers to take advantage of the virtues of both the MI and tradition math instruction techniques. He said this is also the approach recommended by the Presidential Math Panel.
Lattin recommended reading this article from the Wall Street Journal (from here)
Author’s note: When Lattin take a position, he takes an unambiguous position, and he deserves credit for that. While Lattin acknowledged that the MI program’s opponents have done their homework, he said they have taken the wrong side.
Lattin thinks combining the MI and traditional math instruction techniques is right thing to do, and I have little doubt that he could competently combine the two techniques and teach children. Unfortunately, Lattin cannot personally teach the thousands of elementary school children in the Prince William school division.
What I find personally frustrating about all this MI fuss is why we are arguing over this.
Question: What gives a government official the right to tell parents how their children will learn math?
Answer: The schools are owned and operated by government. That leaves concerned parents no other choice except to engage in inane battles with other concerned parents and with caring teachers, devoted school administrators, and responsive School Board members.
As much as I respect the intellect and the integrity of the people on our School Board, I think it unfortunate we put people in a position where they must tell tens of thousands of parents exactly how their tens of thousands of children will be taught. Parents have the right to choose who teaches their children.
Our School Board and school division staff make a sincere effort to listen to everyone’s input. Listening to everyone’s input, however, does not allow parents to exercise choices they have the right and responsibility to make. Listening to everyone’s input also does not necessarily improve decisions or guarantee good instruction. What listening to everyone’s input does do for certain, however, is to defuse complex decisions to larger committees.
To achieve resolve these inane disputes, we need to allow competition. Education services are already bought and sold in the private market. When expect parents to take responsibility for their children. we should let parents choose who teaches their children.
Johns thanked the commenter who advocated the traditional high school. He promised to put the matter on the agenda. He also set the date for the board’s work session on the MI program to May 7.
