>Before the Math Professors letters get misrepresented as some kind of incendiary hate speech I wanted to republish the following letters so you can make up your own mind.
Subject: Re: Common Ground Report
Dear Ridgewood Neighbor,
A number of people have attempted to claim that the Common Grounds
document means that we regard programs like TERC’s Investigations as acceptable. Nothing could be further from the truth. It got to the point that the two mathematicians among the authors, Wilfried Schmid and I, were forced to provide a joint clarifying statement, and I append it below.
Just to be entirely clear, I can’t speak for Wilfried beyond what we say
jointly in our statement below, however my personal view is that TERC is
the second most mathematically illiterate and damaging program I have ever
seen. The first, MathLand, was one of the main reasons I got involved in
issues of mathematics education, but Investigations is so little better
than that horror that it is scarsely possible to discern the difference
between the results for the students subjected to these programs.
Here is the joint statement that I mentioned above:
The following is a joint statement from
Wilfried Schmid
Professor of Mathematics
Harvard University
and
R. James Milgram
Professor of Mathematics
Stanford University
It has been suggested that our views on K-12 mathematics education have undergone a recent change. Not at all — we have consistently maintained that mathematics education must strive for a proper balance between mathematical reasoning, problem solving, and computational facility.
Mathematical reasoning requires not only accurate definitions, but also examples of precise reasoning with these definitions. In our view, all of the NSF funded curricula fall short of giving students the essential tools to reason accurately.
Basic number skills continue to be vitally important. Beyond the everyday use of arithmetic, these skills provide a crucial foundation for the higher level mathematics essential for today’s and tomorrow’s workplace. The NSF funded curricula generally encourage overuse of calculators, do not give students sufficient support to achieve automatic recall of basic number facts, do not teach algorithms properly, 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 Milgram
Wilfried Schmid
>You have to think that if a Professor from Stanford and from Harvard felt the need to publically denounce this program(TERC), they see the results of it in their undergraduate classes.
This is the crux of this issue; this curriculum is an experiment, like “whole language” and may not work.
Do you care if your child will not have the educational foundation in Mathematics needed to be an Engineer, Chemist, Architect, Financial Analyst, Physicist or Actuary?
>The children of Ridgewood have been allowed to become lab rats for the personal agendas of the members of the BOE.
Did you see Botsford curriculum vitae in the Record today? She is a product of the 60’s. The rich white women who were constructing all types of strawdogs and imaginary oppressors to rebel against their mothers’ chosen life styles. They refused to grow up. They wanted to stay in school. Their generation has terminated or helped to terminate what would have been 45 million Americans just so they could act like men.
So here we are in 2007. In Ridgewood New Jersey and we now have a graduate of an all woman’s college at the helm. Her supporters who said that TERC predated her arrival here in the Village had better look at her responsibilities in the other school districts she’s floated through: Supervisor/evaluator of math curriculum-Bridgewater Raritan; Supervisor of math -Spotswood; Chairwoman of middle school math- Princeton Day School; Adjunct Professor of Math – Rutgers (ah, the AAUW again). If anyone knows anything about experimental math programs, she does. If anyone knows anything about experimental FEMINIST math programs, she does. I’m sure her relationship with the Brooks family goes way back. It’s no wonder ours sons and daughters don’t know which way is up.
God help us, yes, I said it, God help us. This politicization of our curriculum (not only math) is dumbing down our kids so much that you can all forget about the Ivy League. We can only pray that our children survive this great social experiment.
>“In our view, all of the NSF funded curricula fall short of giving students the essential tools to reason accurately.”Harvard Professor &
Stanford Professor
TERC and CMP2 are NSF funded curricula.
>To 6:10pm
“God help us, yes, I said it, God help us. This politicization of our curriculum (not only math) is dumbing down our kids so much that you can all forget about the Ivy League. We can only pray that our children survive this great social
experiment. “
I can only pray to survive the hot wind coming from this posting!
Amazing that someone talking about “politization” does not see the glass house she/he lives in.
Talk about agenda-
“The rich white women who were constructing all types of strawdogs and imaginary oppressors to rebel against their mothers’ chosen life styles…. Their generation has terminated or helped to terminate what would have been 45 million Americans just so they could act like men.”
Definetely, this is NOT ABOUT MATH and the political agenda is carried by you. These are the “smarter than the rest of you” people??? This is the we know what’s best for you crowd?
Yep, God help us…
>Oh my gosh, I cannot believe how ridiculous your comments are, 6:10 PM! I’m flabbergasted…is this some sort of experiment in satire? Trying to bring women’s colleges, feminist math (whatever THAT is) and ABORTION into the discussion about Ridgewood’s math curriculum? Are you freakin’ kidding me??????????
I’ve said it before…this blog is good for one thing only and that is ENTERTAINMENT! Thanks for the tonight’s laugh!
>Reality Check Here…
This Math is not male friendly. Boys were traditionally good at Math because it had less language than English. Now boys are put at a disadvantage because there is so much language placed into this type of Math. (Read Michale Gurian’s, “The Mind of Boys.”)
There is a feminist push on this Math program, but it’s bad for girls who would be gifted towards Mathematics also. It’s an insult to the woman who thrived in Mathematics related fields for the last 40 years who learned traditional Math and got it.
It is political, but that is not why it should be removed from Ridgewood.
It should be removed from Ridgewood because your children are being taught “Math Lite” and this is a College Prep town.
When they reappraise your home in the next few months and charge you more for this wonderful education, will you be even more happy to pay for it?
>6:10 pm, that is only the tip of the iceberg.
Botsford is a 1960s revolutionary secretly working with Hillary Clinton & Michael Moore to bring this village and country down. Flag-burning, free love & fuzzy math — that’s her agenda!
When Botsford is done wreaking havoc, you’ll wish these “strawdogs and oppressors” were “imaginary”.
>9:06 I have to say I just read 6:10’s comments and they are right on the money.
You may not like seeing such insightful commentary made in a public way. But this is a very political battle, which is why common sense is taking a back seat to the BOE’s liberal, socialist agenda.
Socialism is all about experimentation with enforced group orthodoxy and the salve of group therapy to make its victims peaceably accept it. Sixties stuff for sure!
There should be NO EXPERIMENTING ON OUR CHILDREN. NONE, NADA. To do so is to capitulate to evil.
Have fun with that statement.
>> God help us, yes, I said it, God help us.
Yes, you said it. And you’re very brave to say it in these godless times. Give yourself a pat on the back, big fella.
>I’d say the BOE is being used by financial interests in TERC ,why else would they waste time with this sham ?
>Yes, common sense is taking a back seat based on what I just read here
Actually…
Common sense is not in the back seat, it’s locked up in the trunk!!! WOW!
>The Simpsons understand this political battle. Watch the attached link.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFbYe-MJ3K4
>Folks – our district has administrators that hire other administrators and teachers that are then rubber stamped by the BOE.
If the leadership believes and follows the reform/constructivist ideology, then common sense says those are the type of administrators and other teachers that will be hired.
Unlike Dr. Brooks – an outspoken and unabashed proponent for constructivism and reform math, our district leaders are not so.
They hide behind rhetoric of balanced approach, but do not actually believe in its methods.
Look closely at the Math Information for Parents.
It tells their story loud and clear.
Ridgewood Public Schools follow the fuzzy standards of the private and controversial organization, NCTM.
Its administrators are full proponents of the un-balanced constructivist approach to teaching.
Their supporting documents and evidence for math programs all come from constructivist and reform promoting organizations.
Their agenda is driving the process. The BOE is rubber stamping their wishes.
Your tax dollars are being used to allow this failed approach (yes, FAILED approach – since its birth in 1989, this approach has MADE our ability in the math and sciences WORSE not better).
No amount of rhetoric, no amount of aggregate data reporting from the district can dispute that fact.
Vote out the BOE members coming up in 2008 for election. And continue to do so until a clean sweep of the BOE has occurred.
>I am so thankful that the last of my children graduated out of the Ridgewood school system a few years ago. All of them are very strong in math, learning the traditional way with no TERC in sight.
It is disgraceful that our boe members are now dumbing down Ridgewood’s schoolchildren with TERC. But, what do they care? The majority (3 trustees or more?)of the board no longer have children in the system. They apparently don’t want to listen to the expert mathematicians at our top universities denouncing TERC which means they surely won’t listen to those constituents who denounce TERC.
Something’s rotten in Ridgewood. The fish stinks at the head.
>6:10 PM Your repellent anti-feminist tirade has nothing to do with the math debate. Clearly, you are an extremist with a strong authoritarian bent, which makes you oddly similar to both the Taliban and Botsford. Nobody reading this blog should confuse your views with the consensus view of the anti-reform math residents in Ridgewood.
Botsford is by no means a 60s revolutionary. If she were, then she would be LISTENING to the anti-reform math parents. The 60s ideal is that of respecting grassroots movements; of inclusion, not exclusion. Botsford is, instead, like yourself, a true authoritarian. One who thinks she knows best and therefore doesn’t need to listen to those pesky, well-off, educated (or perhaps overly educated, at least according to you and the Taliban) and mostly white women in our own town.
Clearly, reform math is a fad embraced by the status quo. Ironically, the push for traditional math is now a truly revolutionary movement, which must struggle against the powers that be including our own BOE, school administrators, teaching institutes, and organizations like PRISM.
>I disagree with 10:32’s comments about the post by 6:10. Your mistake is to presume a moral equivalence between an extremist (Botsford and her ilk who promote constructivist math) and one who makes an intellectual argument in pointing out the political roots of such extreme positions. It would be like equating the arsonist with the fire brigade for the simple reason that they both work with fire.
>Just to recap, the “intellectuals” on this thread have jumped the shark by comparing Regina Botsford to the Taliban.
What’s next, David Pfund is Hitler? Bill Corcoran is Stalin?
>whatching the lunatic…
Agreed! It really brings “credibility” to the argument, doesn’t it?
Not, but it’s great entertainment to read the dillusions of others…
if it wasn’t scary that they live among us.
>From 10:32 am
To 11:31 AM and 11:45 AM, really, you can’t be that obtuse. The posting clearly compared 6:10 PM to the Taliban and Botsford, but this does not mean that the latter two are like each other. In fact, quite unlike 6:10 PM and the Taliban, Botsford doesn’t seem to have a virulent objection to a woman’s right to a decent education. Ironically, as an educated woman, herself, she is the Taliban’s (and 6:10 PM’s?) worst nightmare. Hmmm…it looks like you intentionally misrepresented what I said for the sake of a better sound bite, “oooo, get this, the lunatics compared Botsford to the Taliban.” Nice try.
11:09 AM Botsford is indeed an extremist in the sense that she is ideologically bound to the reform math movement. Nothing she has said or done, to date, shows that she is willing to consider a balanced approach to the teaching of math. However, contrary to 6:10 PM’s claim, this does not make her a revolutionary, because her position is solidly in sync with the latest fad du jour of the education establishment and our own BOE. Moral equivalence? Not true. I did argue 6:10 PM has a strong authoritarian bent, which btw is a personality trait Mrs. Botsford happens to share, and which makes her very much NOT a product of the 60s. However, make no mistake, there is no moral equivalence. It is only 6:10 PM’s misogynism which I find morally repellent. Mrs. Botsford might be an ideological extremist, but she does not exhibit the hatred spewed forth by 6:10 PM. 6:10 PM’s virulent diatribe against women should not be mistaken for an “intellectual argument.”
>10:32 —
“Excuse me, I have to be getting back to Planet Earth now”
Woody Allen, Annie Hall
>”But this is a very political battle, which is why common sense is taking a back seat to the BOE’s liberal, socialist agenda.”
NYC is the most liberal town in the world and they don’t like TERC in their schools – visit http://www.nychold.com.
TERC does not put any emphasis on Math Facts, Standard Algorithms and Fractions. It is not just a “reform” Math program; it’s the most extreme one you can purchase. It originated with no workbooks for children and now has added them in the hip TERC 2 because according to their web site “teachers weren’t always teaching what the curriculum stressed”.
The failure of TERC is never the curriculum; it’s the teachers who need more training, the students who need remediation or the parents who are dinosaurs.
Liberal, Democrat, Socialist or Fascist, this curriculum stinks for everyone.
>Well said, 9:35 pm.
>11:31 said, “What’s next, David Pfund is Hitler? Bill Corcoran is Stalin?”
Well, the Chief does have a mustache.