This is the third part in a three-part series on how the Prince William County School Board dealt with Math Investigations at its January 21 meeting. Part 1 summarized the arguments made by citizens during Citizen Comment time. Part 2 summarized the statements made by various School Board members with respect Math Investigations. This post considers what the news media has said about the issue and provides the author’s personal observations.
What Does the News Media Have To Say About Math Investigations?
The conflict over how to teach mathematics in Prince William County Schools (PWCS) has reached a new threshold. So the news media has taken renewed notice. What is the news media? I think most would apply the term to “newspapers and magazines collectively” or to journalism and fourth estate (see here). In an era where most of us receive our news from so many other sources, that usage of the term has becoming too narrow. Today blogs have replaced the pamphleteers of yesteryear. Local newspapers have become regional corporations, and most of us get our news from cable and network television.
The Blogs
PWCS itself, of course, uses the Internet. In fact, the PWCS curriculum staff promotes Math Investigations on their webpage for Elementary Mathematics Programs.
PWCS’ opponents also use the Internet. Once they began to realize they were in a fight, the parents opposing Math Investigations and advocating Traditional Mathematics set up their own website, PWC Teach Math Right. With their own single-minded focus, these parents have disseminated the facts and the news that support their cause.
Some regard the Internet as new way to fight the school bureaucracy.
For a new generation of well-wired activists in the Washington region, it’s not enough to speak at Parent-Teacher Association or late-night school board meetings. They are going head-to-head with superintendents through e-mail blitzes, social networking Web sites, online petitions, partnerships with business and student groups, and research that mines a mountain of electronic data on school performance. (from here)
For example, on January 30th, the front page of PWC Teach Math Right included these factoids:
- The proposed minutes of the School Boards meeting on January 21st were blatantly one-sided (see here). This version of minutes will be considered for approval at the meeting on February 4th. This version recorded only those comments from the members of the School Board that favor the cause of Math Investigations.
- At the February 4th meeting, the Chairman of the School Board, Milt Johns, will offer a motion suspending the implementation Math Investigations in the fifth grade. Note that Johns proposal is buried in the proposed agenda. Check out the next to last entry in item 5 of the February 4th meeting at the Electronic School Board.
Several blogs besides this one have begun to pick up interest in the story.
- ANTI-BVBL provided video clips from the January 21st meeting (here). Here another ANTI-BVBL writer explains why she finds Math Investigations ineffective.
- Greg L., who apparently has at least one child taking Math Investigations is not happy with the program. He spoke during Citizen Comment time on the 21st and has taken up investigating Math Investigations as a cause. Originally, Greg L. focused on PWCS principally with respect to taxes. Now, however, he has a series of posts on school Math Investigations going back to at least October 2008 (here, here, and here). His latest post, here, attacks school staff for using the email system to organize their support for Math Investigations. Most likely some of the School Staff did abuse their positions to organize opposition to the Opt In Option for Traditional Math. That would include using school email to pressure colleagues, and encouraging children to propagandize their parents. However, this is stupid behavior, not criminal behavior. What is just as bad that in the midst of his investigations, Greg L. encourages his readers to think and speak angrily. In particular, Greg L. uses his blog to abuse School Board member Don Richardson. The insults are not helpful.
- On the other hand,Virginia Virtucon has a post that reviews the January 21st School Board meeting and offers a considered opinion (see here).
- PWC Education Reform Blog is a relatively new venture. Like PWC Teach Math Right, it appears to be devoted to getting the word out about the problems some parents perceive with Math Investigations.
- Note also that the School Board meeting on the 21st earned some blog coverage outside our area (see here).
The Newspapers
Newspaper coverage of Math Investigations is event driven and mixed with “expert” sounding pundit opinions. Since the School Board meeting on January 21st was an event, there was coverage and opinions.
- Inside NOVA provides a relatively objective account here. Of course, as usual the newspaper plays up the issues involved as monumental crisis. In an editorial, we are told to trust the objectivity of teachers (see here).
- In series of short articles, Examiner.com (see here, here, and here ) lays out the issues over Math Investigations as emotional conflict between protesting parents and school officials.
What I found surprising is how little news media coverage there was on the Math Investigations controversy. Admittedly, I don’t watch television. Nonetheless, I would have expected other newspapers to pick up on the School Board’s controversial January 21st meeting. Perhaps the School Board’s next session will receive more media attention.
Author’s Personal Observations
My children are grown, but I am a grandparent and a taxpayer. So I have the responsibility to be concerned about the education of children. Nonetheless, I am not an “expert” in math education. So why do I have the right to my own opinion about the best way to educate children in math? Consider what happens when we pull money out of our pocket and we set off to buy a washing machine, an automobile, choose a university, a dentist, or any number of other different things we might want to buy. Does pulling money out of our billfold make us an “expert” on washing machines, autos, university education, dentistry, or anything else? No. Nonetheless, it is our money; we each get to choose how we spend it. We even get to buy washing machines to wash our children’s clothes, choose cars to drive our children about, help our children select a college, and pick the dentist who cares for our children’s teeth. When it is our money, we each choose the experts we want to do business with.
So why are parents and teachers fighting about Math Investigations? When people get elected to public office, this very strange thing seems to happen to too many of them. Politicians too easily forget that they are spending other people’s money. I can only guess why this happens. I suppose that when taxpayers simply hand their money over and hope for the best, politicians must decide they know best about just about everything. What is consummately peculiar, however, is the “solution” our elected officials have chosen to educate children. In a land where people love to make their own choices, we have an education system where the “choices” are defined by government officials. Within the confines of a democratic capitalist state, we have adopted the socialist model to educate children. We have a government owned and operated school system, a monopoly that punishes parents when they choose any other alternative but government.
Monopolies, particularly government-run monopolies, are problematic. As time passes, government-run monopolies become more and more inefficient. Each year a government-run monopoly exists, it tends to become more captivated by special interests.
As more than one School Board member has observed, even before schools started adopting Math Investigations, the math scores of students started going down. Why did that happen? Perhaps the fact school systems have gotten bigger and more bureaucratic may have something to do with it. Each year local governments and parents have less control. Instead, “experts” in Richmond, VA and Washington, DC provide more money, more “guidance,” require more administrative overhead, and elevate more “standards” in more ways that have nothing whatsoever to do with actually teaching children.
Given their own druthers, parents would send their children to schools that satisfy them, not the interests of busybody special interest groups. Unfortunately, government owned and operated monopolies force associations that people would otherwise not choose for themselves. This lack of real choice creates tension and frustration. In time, strife is almost inevitable, and so we have strife over Math Investigations. Unfortunately, the School Board cannot actually solve the monopoly problem. The School Board’s hands are tied by Federal and state laws.
The best School Board can do is to make an inherently warped system function as well as it can. One of their challenges has to do with choice. Given the lack of true choice, both the School Board and the School Staff are obligated to allow parents as much latitude as they can manage. Hence the School Board must seriously consider the Opt In Option. Don Richardson‘s and Grant Lattin‘s qualms over offering parents too many choices have a real basis. Large bureaucratic organizations really do have trouble giving their customers choices. Nonetheless, when School Board members debate the Opt In Option for Traditional Math, each needs to remember what the executives of capitalist enterprises do when their customers complain. They listen to their customer’s complaints. Then they work with their employees to resolve their customer’s complaints. Customers, not employees, pay the bills.
The Cartoons
Political cartoons exist to provide food for thought. So here are a few thoughts to digest.
You have to wonder what children learn about government in government-run schools. Where did we get these bailout ideas from?
Cartoon from here.
Does a government-run educational bureaucracy exist to educate or to serve the interests of political opportunists?
Cartoon from here.
If the parent’s priorities are not the first priority of the School Staff, then whose priorities are they serving?
Artist unknown.
Many treat public ownership and operation of public education as a sacred act of charity. Perhaps, but why is public ownership and operation needed? Sometimes what truly motivates people is difficult to determine. For example, because “free” government-run schools undermine Catholic schools, some suspect a component of bigotry.
1871 cartoon by Thomas Nast from here. See here for an explanation.
Just a point to clarify. Investigations was not adopted to remedy declining elementary math test scores. SOL pass and pass advanced rates in PWC elementary schools were actually increasing when Investigations was selected.
Investigations was selected to address declining SAT scores and lower than acceptable Algebra I and Geometry SOL pass and pass advanced rates.
This information was presented to the school board by PWC staff at the December 22, 2005 informational session.
pwceducationreform — I am perfectly happy to direct people to your blog for that part of the debate. When School Staff members presents themselves and TERC as “experts,” I think they have to earn that right. Because people really do not have a choice, I think the expertise of educators is automatically open to question. Real experts are not afraid of competition.
I never said that anyone in the school system didn’t have the right to present themselves as experts. I merely provided information to clarify a point which might be misinterpreted based on what was reported in the article.
You stated in your article that Investigations was adopted to address declining test scores. While that statement is technically accurate, it is also misleading because it implies that elementary math test scores were declining. They were not. In fact elementary math scores were increasing.
What was dropping was SAT scores, and Algebra 1 and Geometry SOL pass and pass advanced rates were lower than expected (but also increasing). So when county staff state that Investigations was adopted to remedy declining test scores – they are technically accurate because high school test scores were declining or lower than expected, but also misleading because it was the high school test scores that were declining or lower than expected, not the elementary school test scores.
It also means that a new elementary mathematics curriculum was adopted to remedy lower than acceptable high school test scores. I do agree that the debate over why a new elementary math curriculum was adopted to address high school math scores yet no changes were made to the high school or middle school curriculum is probably best directed elsewhere, however, I also believe that providing people with complete information on issues as politically charged as this one has become is vital.
Those opposed to Investigations have frequently been accused of mis-information my at least one board member and the math department yet we have been and continue to be completely open about what we want and why we want it.
Better math education for our own children than we currently have.
I was told by Ms Knight that high school scores were the reason and that MI would help the kids think.
If that is so, why aren’t they trying it with those kids?
Have they given them up as a lost cause? Doesn’t make sense. No, they changed the math text and then had to justify it. That excuse will take the longest to be proved incorrect.
Actually the sixth and seventh grade SOL math scores should be an attention grabber. Kids are falling on their faces.
It is way too soon to tell if math investigations has impact on test scores. It often takes years to gather reliable data.
There is also concern that not enough students are enrolling in higher level math courses, past what is required. Students need to feel confortable with concepts to do well in those higher level classes.
Just to clarify, the SOL was first administered to students in Grades 6 and 7 in the Spring of 2006 – after Investigations had been selected as the new elementary math curriculum. When Investigations was selected the only Middle School grade which took the SOL was Grade 8 and Grade 8 scores were neither bad nor dropping. PWCS students in Grade 8 in the years prior to Investigations adoption exceeded state averages by 3 – 5 points in both pass and pass advance AND the percentage of students achieving a pass and an advanced score was increasing each year.
Grade 6 began taking the SOL in the Spring of 2006. Grade 6 scores, while not as high as we might have hoped, are steadily increasing AND exceed state averages by 2 – 6 points in students achieving a pass and pass advanced score.
Grade 7 also began taking the SOL in the Spring of 2006. Grade 7 pass and pass advanced scores increase each year, however, PWCS does not exceed state averages for Grade 7.
So, in the middle school years we have both Grades 6 and 8 which exceed state averages for both pass and pass advanced rates. Only Grade 7 is lower than state average. If those scores were the result of a lack of understanding of math concepts then I’d expect the declines noted in Grade 7 to continue into Grade 8, but they don’t – Grade 8 scores exceed state averages. That seems to indicate, to me at least, a problem with the Grade 7 curriculum.
Re: FireNiceChick – “6th and 7th grade SOL math scores should be an attention grabber. Kids are falling on their faces.”
Umm, so what does that mean? Let’s not be hasty in proclaiming a crisis where none exists. PWCS beat the Va State pass rates for 6th grade 2008 SOL math overall and for each and every NCLB AYP student subgroup except “students with disabilities” and “limited English proficient students”. The same is the case for 8th grade math SOLs. 7th grade SOL standings are interesting in that PWCS averages are indeed below state average.
So what’s going on? How could we be doing great in 4th and 5th grade math SOL testing (2008 – traditional math), good in 6th and 8th, but not 7th?
Well, the fact of the matter is that the top performing middle school students in PWCS never take the Grade 7 SOL math test! Looking at the most recent VA DOE data – 2008 PWCS scores is revealing.
You see children in the advanced math middle school track (PWCS extended math) take the Grade 6 SOL math test in 6th grade, the grade 8 SOL math test in 7th grade, and the ALGEBRA I SOL test in 8th grade. Result: the top performing students are not ever included in the grade 7 SOL math testing process nor results. Unfortunately this is conveniently NOT mentioned by staff whenever they are crying “fire” about SOL scores. The “Inconvenient Truth” is that the facts do not support the assertion of crisis.
Further the next SOL metric up the math ladder is Algebra I. And how does PWCS do? 92% pass rate overall and at or above 85% pass rate for all AYP student subgroups except students with disabilities.
Notably PWCS Algebra I students are above the state average “PASS ADVANCED” rate OVERALL AND ACROSS EACH AND EVERY AYP student subgroup in Algebra I. Again, hardly indicative of a “crisis.”
It’s easy to claim “crisis” but it’s educationally irresponsible to do so when none exists. If there were really truly a crisis in middle school mathematics in PWCS, and even if the PWCS Math Department had the crystal ball to prognosticate “crisis requiring Math Investigations” years before grade 6 & 7 SOL tests were administered in Virginia there’s no explanation why they would not have taken corrective or interventional measures IN MIDDLE SCHOOL MATHEMATICS.
You see, by deliberate process PWCS adopted nothing but traditional texts and materials for use in the middle schools — despite claims that there was a crisis. No additional focus, no interventional or “reform/constructivist” textbooks/materials adopted for primary or supplemental middle school use…just good old traditional mathematics.
Apologies for the Inconvenient Truths, and one last question. What makes anyone think that SOL scores are an important metric in considering the success or failure of Math Investigations in PWCS? The only reason I ask this is because of the fact that neither the Math Departement, the Student Learning and Accountability Office, nor the School Board is willing to define the metrics for success or failure of Math Investigations.
I would challenge any PWCS parent to ask their Board representative why the Board will not demand an answer to that one. When one makes a conscious decision to turn mathematics instruction upside down and claim it to be superior to regular old proven traditional mathematics (that teaches both concepts and individual and mastery of applications) the least that parents and taxpayers should get in return is an understanding of the metrics by which that investment is to be measured. Else it’s no different than a bumper sticker disclaimer “actual mileage may vary”
rgb