>
Ridgewood’s Assist. Superintendent for Curriculum Caught Misrepresenting Stanford and Harvard Math ProfessorsThe Fly on the Wall took note that viewers had a front row seat at last night’s Board of Education meeting to see how administrators of the District’s math department mislead taxpayers and parents. Regina Botsford, the District’s Director of Curriculum, squandered what remained of her credibility by claiming in an extensive presentation that the document entitled, “Reaching for Common Ground in K-12 Mathematics,” was the standard followed by Ridgewood’s math department in its desire to pursue the “Investigations” curricula, also known as TERC, in an effort to make math accessible to all children. This 2007 document prepared by the prestigious Mathematical Association of America was authored by six premier educators who sought to find ‘common ground’ in the ongoing math debates to protect districts from falling prey to experimental math programs and to ensure that their K-12 math curricula is established on solid academic standards. Ms. Botsford praised the document and its authors and made it clear that by following what this document outlined, Ridgewood was providing the very best math texts and programs to its children.
What happened next was nothing short of stunning as a parent, identified as Ms. Joan O’Keefe, took to the microphone to share with the public her recent communication with the key mathematics professor who served as one of this document’s authors, Professor R. James Milgram of Stanford University. This parent had contacted Professor Milgram when the “common ground” document first appeared on the District’s web site under “Information for Parents.” Contrary to what Ms. Botsford would have parents and board members believe, Dr. Milgram wrote that, “TERC is the second most mathematically illiterate and damaging program I have ever seen.” Milgram’s full response and the joint statement he references are below:
“Dear MS. O’Keefe,
A number of people have attempted to claim that the Common Groundsdocument means that we regard programs like TERC’s Investigations asacceptable. Nothing could be further from the truth. It got to thepoint that the two mathematicians among the authors, Wilfried Schmid andI, were forced to provide a joint clarifying statement, and I append itbelow.Just to be entirely clear, I can’t speak for Wilfried beyond what we sayjointly in our statement below, however my personal view is that TERC isthe second most mathematically illiterate and damaging program I haveever seen. The first, MathLand, was one of the main reasons I gotinvolved in issues of mathematics education, but Investigations is solittle better than that horror that it is scarsely possible to discernthe difference between the results for the students subjected to theseprograms.”
R. James MilgramProfessor of MathematicsStanford University
******
The following is a joint statement fromWilfried SchmidProfessor of MathematicsHarvard UniversityandR. James MilgramProfessor of MathematicsStanford University
It has been suggested that our views on K-12 mathematics educationhave undergone a recent change. Not at all — we have consistentlymaintained that mathematics education must strive for a proper balancebetween mathematical reasoning, problem solving, and computationalfacility.Mathematical reasoning requires not only accurate definitions, but alsoexamples of precise reasoning with these definitions. In our view, allof the NSF funded curricula fall short of giving students the essentialtools to reason accurately.Basic number skills continue to be vitally important. Beyond theeveryday use of arithmetic, these skills provide a crucial foundationfor the higher level mathematics essential for today’s and tomorrow’sworkplace. The NSF funded curricula generally encourage overuse ofcalculators, do not give students sufficient support to achieveautomatic recall of basic number facts, do not teach algorithmsproperly, and pay insufficient attention to the arithmetic of fractions.We regard the K-5 program “Investigations in Number, Data, and Space”(TERC) as especially deficient.
R. James MilgramWilfried Schmid
ORDER FINE ART/ STOCK PRINTS ON-LINE
>In the parents own words:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=sla2_-bsF74
>Institutional lying… so like the communists. If this happened in the business world Botsford would be fired the next day.
>This is extraordinary. I would claim again that I am not intimately familiar with all of the pros and cons of TERC, and my kids are all too old to be affected by it, but this presentation should have each administrator and board member losing sleep at night. Instead, all that is heard after Ms. O’Keefe statement is a muttered “Thank you.” As in “Thank you please sit down now, we’re not going to respond to any of your concerns until we’re so far down the road on this thing that we can’t change our path.” Way to go, gang.
>Please wake up, Ridgewood residents! It’s time for the “peasants with pitchforks”!
>Knowledge is Power
Google Terc Investigations and see what comes up
You will soon realize that finding anything positive about Investigations is like searching for a needle in a haystack.
Why are so many parents in so many communities up in arms about this math program?
Do you want your children or your neighbor’s children used as guinea pigs in this educational experiment?
Why isn’t the Board of Ed listening? Why are they so pre-reform math?
Add in a constructivist superintendent and you have a recipe for a mathematical disaster.
Brooks wasn’t hired to run the math program Bombace says.
Who’s in charge of math education in this district? Botsford? She showed her ignorance of reform math at last night’s meeting. Is this the right person to be making educational decisions about math? Does she know all the facts?
>Can someone clarify for me if “Everyday Math” is part of TERC? I know that “Investigations” is but my school is using “Everyday Math” and it’s just awful.
>Why does the BoE choose not to dialogue with the public? It’s atrocious that not one member was able to opine on the obvious concerns over the math program. Ms. O’Keefe was publicly dismissed with a “Thank you, next please.” Why didn’t anyone on the board say “Gee, that’s a helluva lot of proof from some pretty influential people that maybe we ought to re-evaluate this program.” Instead, nothing. Nothing. NOTHING.
>Everyday Math is the same type of constructivist math program just like TERC Investigations, but published by different publishers. These types of math programs have many different names. To see a more complete listing, visit VORmath.info and read the petition. It asks for removal of all of the “fuzzy math” programs, Everyday Math included.
>Everyday Math and TERC are published by the same company…so is the Scott Foresman Math program…Pearson Publishing.
So maybe all the schools could easily switch to lesser of all evils…Scott Foresman Math.
Or maybe we can just throw Pearson out and look at Saxon and Houghton-Millfin?
>Our new superintendent thinks and believes in the same ideology as Regina Botsford regarding math education.
Remember, he is from Plainview Old-Bethpage. They are jettisoning TERC now that he is departing ways with the district.
With him coming on board this summer will he be willing to make a change in our mathematics curriculum; a change we obviously need to make.
Or, as has been quoted in the Bergen Record and the Ridgewood News, he is coming NOT to address the math.
In the organization of our district, he is ultimately responsible for math as he sits above Regina Botsford.
BOTH the Assistant Superintendent and Superintendent SHOULD BE HELD accountable for this math debacle.
>Why would the new superintendent want to address math? The program he supports (Investigations) is in place.
And to make matters more complicated, different things are going on in different schools, making it harder for parents to band together to fight for a more traditional math program.
For Brooks, this district is a great situation and one that pits school against school, parent against parent, and makes things far more easier to control.
>Does anybody know if GW uses CMP2 or is this just being use at BF?
>It’s really true what the commenter said above that it becomes school against school, and parent against parent.
When you’re in this advocacy thing, you expend quite a bit of emotional energy just on preserving relationships and figuring out how not to turn other parents off.
And teachers, I think, are a big casualty in this. If they don’t like the reform method, they won’t teach it as well, and yet they’re expected to defend it.
What an awful position that must be for them. Teachers need to feel comfortable with the methodology they’re using.
Fine teachers who’ve been in our district a long time could burn out because of this. It’s sad.
>you folks go on and on about the problems with the math program, but no one seems to care that one of its biggest proponents was just slipped into Travell as the permanent principal
who had any say in that decision?
where were you all when that decision was being made?
>you folks go on and on about the problems with the math program, but no one seems to care that one of its biggest proponents was just slipped into Travell as the permanent principal
Actually many people do care and unfortunately with their posting of this at the end of the school day before a long 4 day weekend, who knew.
who had any say in that decision?
Well of course not us parents. The district has made it quite clear we are the last people to be consulted with on any decision if we are consulted with at all. Such arrogance, don’t you think?
where were you all when that decision was being made?
And I ask, where were you? Did you go to a Board Meeting and speak your mind? Doing that might have encourage and embolden others to do the same too.
Or are you expecting others to wage your battle while you privately complain on the playground?
If you are unhappy, even now with the Principal appointment, let the BOE know 6:51 PM or write a letter to the editor.
Complaining here is just that … complaining here … and what will that do?
Certainly won’t get me to wage your battle.
But I would be one to support your battle – you just have to lead your cause.
Because what you are saying is just like with the math issue and many other issues that seem to repeatedly come up in this district.
The administration of it is so arrogant as to forget the education and talent and interest the parents/taxpayers of this Village have in exactly what they are doing with our children and money.
And when Dr. Brooks comes on board it will only get worse as he is an idealogue.
Idealogue as in far left wing throw out the textbooks, throw out the tests, lets create chaos all in the name of making life-long learners.
But his life-long learners will have no core knowledge base to do the critical thinking of the 21st century.
>complaining on the blog is better than nothing since many more eyes read this than actually comment
maybe some BOE eyes or even the new superintendent
>Then complain away (LOL) …
(and to summarize for the many eyes watching)
Complaints from the Residents
(in no particular order):
– TERC/Investigations for elementary schools (just to recap, this is the “2nd most mathematically illiterate and damaging program”, the first one went out of business)
– Radical New Superintendent (He is coming here because he percieves our district as “friendly” to his radical views – now thats scary)
– New Travell Principal (who was slipped in through the back door – no parental involvement please)
– BOE mistake with container and trusses (BOE can ignore everyone it seems)
– Wood chips dumped by the town (its their town so residents be damned – which isnt very neighborly of the town, now is it?)
– Budget mistake by the town (here a dollar there a dollar – its not their money – but they love to spend it like drunk sailors (no offense to our men in white ))
Anything else?
>I told my kid the superintendent might try to do away with letter and number grades.
My kid’s reaction? She panicked. She said, “But that’s my incentive!”
>Letters, number grades, njasks results… concret prove of progress in our children education, but also a concret prove of the horrors of this “new balance” approach….(look at Travell NJASK results) Of course they want to get rid of them…Hide and ignore the evidence. Great defense
>Did anyone notice that Regina Botsford is now getting an assistant? Why does she need an assistant? Isn’t she holding a fairly new postion herself? Now she needs an assistant? $$$$$$
~a taxpayer
>An assistant might be someone who can keep her office running while the board throws her under the bus…..
>I’m a teacher in another district. I was searching for blogs in support of Investigations to see what other teachers think. We use Investigations and are succeeding greatly. However, we do suppliment with a great program called Every Day Counts Calendar Math published by Write Source. It addresses the problems like arithmatic with fractions, clocks, and many other things. We use the Scott Foresman program, too. We also do our own fact fluency program which includes playing the games from Investigations. I think the part of Investigations that I like the best is how it develops a deep understanding of numbers and develops a true number sense which just isn’t fostered in more traditional math programs. We really do deliver a balanced approach. So for what it’s worth, I do think your math program needs some review, but maybe don’t be too quick to completely throw out Investigations. Parts of it are really good.
>So, TERC problems are not rare?
I’m from another district and we are having the same problem. Take a look for yourself:
http://www.rvcschoolwatch.blogspot.com