CSD 2 Board Members,
Dear Madam, or Sir,
Last fall, concerned at what appeared to be the failure of my 3rd
grader to build on the mathematics she learned in 2nd grade, I began
to look into the math curriculum at PS 11, and District 2. But, having begun
concerned with the math curriculum increasingly I came to see another issue to
be more important, and disturbing. Thus the questions I address to you here
bear but indirectly on the math curriculum; and to pose them to you I mean
briefly to describe how they arose for me.
What first struck me about the difficulties my 3rd
grader was having with mathematics was that there was no textbook to look into
to assess what she knew, in light of what she was expected to know; nor could I
help her, absent a textbook, for I did not know how at any point a particular
topic was being explained to her, according to the TERC method. Now you may
think, as many parents I know do, that the solution to this problem is simply
to hire a tutor. But, call me a fool, I cannot see why
having paid for a public education anyone should pay privately because the
curriculum is flawed, and beyond hope of improvement.
Which is why I began to ask questions in the first place, to see
if it might be possible to improve the curriculum; and if my 8 year old wept
with frustration staring at a page of math homework even with me there every
day to help, just imagine the feelings of any child who does not have such
constant care, or whose parents can’t afford to hire
tutors.
I had attended a "math
night" at my school a year previous to this, but I left the presentation
confused. For among other things we were shown a simple bar graph displaying
the results of research which was said to prove that those who study math
according to the TERC curriculum do best on a test, those who study according
to the "algorithmic" method do much less well, but those who study
math by mixing the algorithmic method with TERC do very badly indeed! Now
without a good deal more information than the bald assertion that this is so, I
have to confess I was a good deal less than convinced of the truth of this
claim. But as we were not informed where one might get hold of this research so
as to read and reflect upon it for oneself, I let the matter drop.
So I had questions about the math curriculum which I raised in the
first place at a PTA meeting, where however they were met with the flat and
dismal assertion, as I felt it, that the curriculum is set at the District
level and so it is beyond the PTA’s competence to entertain them.
Now this experience at the hands of the PTA has colored all my
thoughts since; but be that as it may, in search of answers still I came to a
District Board meeting where, thinking that if I were to learn what led whoever
adopted TERC as the best math curriculum to do so, I might be equally
convinced, I asked after the public record of the deliberations which led to
its adoption. But while my question was seemingly kindly received, I waited in
vain for any answer. So I returned to the Board, asked again, and this time was
called a week or so later by Lucy West, who among other things told me that
TERC was more egalitarian than other curricula, which is why there is so much
political opposition to it from right wing reactionaries; a claim I don’t mind
telling you rather astonished me. But more to the point of my interest she also
assured me there is no public record of the deliberations for which I sought.
Now while I thanked her politely of course, I did not then and do
not now believe what she said. Not for lack of effort however but because I
find it incredible that any single person would have the discretionary power to
adopt a curriculum in the
At the same District Board meetings at which I raised my own
question, a question was raised as to a public meeting being held to discuss
the math curriculum; the proposal met with approval, at last, though again,
here too I sensed that there had been, and was continuing, deep seated
opposition. A balanced panel was spoken of however, and in such a way as led me
to think that this discussion might provide me a chance to find answers to my
own questions, for I took the assurance of "balance" to mean that the
discussion would be open, free, and so far as it would involve employees of District
2, responsive. For the assurance was given, as you all know, by the District
Superintendent, whose public utterance surely would reassure those employed by
the District that they might feel free to speak their mind. Was this an
unreasonable or foolish inference on my part, do you think?
You know that a "math forum" was held at PS/IS 89, under
the auspices of the Parents’ Council, which drew a considerable crowd; but
there was no hint of balance on the panel, which proceeded to describe how TERC
would work in an ideal world, yet even so without allowing questions even for
purposes of clarification. Now as my concern was not with any ideal world, I
felt that this part of the evening, which as I mentioned to you, I had heard at
a presentation at my school a year and more previous, was not satisfactory; as
did the parents I questioned seated around me. About half way through the
evening audience members were allowed to ask questions, to which responses were
given by the panel, but not in my estimation, answers; which led to more
frustration.
Toward the end of the panel presentation, voices from the back of
the room shouted "Get to the questions", as the lights went on and
off, then during the question period, voices from the front of the room shouted
"Get to your question"; which would seem to prove that there was a
strong and polarized opposition between on the one side, those who wanted a
vigorous debate of TERC, and those who, for whatever reason, were bent on
preventing it, don’t you agree?
Again, those of you present know that the PS/IS 89 forum began
with a lengthy presentation in praise of TERC’s
virtues, in course of which panelists said, among other things, that teachers
who do not support the TERC curriculum should leave the District; and too that
"longitudinal studies" prove that children taught according to the
pre-TERC method are more likely to end up in prison than those taught by the
TERC method; and told too that already math scores were improving as children’s
understanding of mathematical concepts was deepening, as might be seen if we
but looked at a whole series of graphs and charts projected, however, at such
speed as to defy comprehension; all this without opportunity for questions.
Hence I found myself pondering the question I raise to you now;
did this "math night" provide the free, open, and responsive
discussion to which I was looking forward? And if not, why
not?
Whose interest is served, I asked myself then, and you now, by
such a response to requests for discussion?
Not those like myself and those sitting about me that night, who
said that they had heard presentations like this before, who had come in quest
of an informed discussion and the chance to raise specific questions in search
of specific answers. But if it didn’t serve the interest of people like me, did
it serve the interest of the District? Not likely, I think; for isn’t one of
the lessons we learned from President Nixon’s Watergate debacle, that if people
even only feel they are being stonewalled, this will increase their disgust,
not diminish it.
Again, I asked myself then and you now, who among us does not believe that an informed deliberative process with
respect to these matters is both advisable on pragmatic grounds and the duty of
all who claim to teach science? (And mathematics remember, is still the premier
science.) Isn’t critically informed discussion precisely the scientific method,
and too the foundation of democracy?
I appreciate that my invoking the terms "duty" and
"democracy" here may strike you as sententious, and betrays my having
been to the old school, but if these words have something of an air of the
antique nowadays, yet I think you know what I am talking about.
At all events, in light of my experience at PS/IS 89, and the
subsequent discussion at a District Board meeting, I raised some of my concerns
in a letter to Doug Robinson, which he has not as yet found time to respond to.
(Though I sympathize with Mr.Robinson who is very
busy, I’m sure, with more pressing matters of public interest.)
Now I fully appreciate what a long and tedious recital
this has been, but it leads me at last to pose these questions to you; do you
believe that any of the claims I represent to be incredible are true? If so I
should be grateful and fascinated to see what grounds you appeal in support of
them. Do you agree that to tell people what no one can believe does not serve
the interests of the Board, or anyone who raises questions about education in
I trust each of you will read and reflect on the concerns I raise
here, and look forward to hearing from you when you can find the time. In the
meantime I am,
yours sincerely,
Garry Dobbins