Letter to the Editor
The New York Post
(unpublished)
January 22, 2003
Dear Editor,
I read Carl Campanile's story this morning (Back to School Basics, January 22) with some alarm. I am a veteran of the California curriculum wars, and have looked closely at a variety of curriculum materials, including Everyday Math and Impact Math. Both programs were submitted for adoption in my state, and both were rejected for a variety of reasons, principally because they missed entirely meeting our world-class mathematics standards. Everyday Math introduces the hand calculator in kindergarten as a crutch for learning to count, and it falls farther and farther behind in each successive grade. It is certainly not a "back to basics" program, whatever that means. Although Everyday math has some admirable features, its drawbacks make it exactly the wrong prescription to turn an urban and struggling school system around. An advisory report from a panel of teachers and others submitted to the California Curriculum Commission puts it succinctly "Navigating through the many different components is difficult." Added to that is the need for mathematical sophistication in the teachers. Does New York City hang on to its teachers long enough to accomplish that level of training?
California has some examples of schools which have improved remarkably in a short time with scripted programs quite the opposite of those Mr. Klein offers NYC children in all but a handful of elite schools. Here are five years of Stanford 9 scores from an elementary school I have been following, Eshelman Avenue in Lomita, CA. Eshelman is a Title 1 school with a shortened year-around school year:
Reading
Grade 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
1 36 34 56 77
2 30 35 38 56 63
3 34 36 48 52 56
4 23 37 37 58 54
5 38 31 46 41 57
Math
Grade 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
1 39 39 50 73
2 39 39 48 57 71
3 48 52 61 66 74
4 27 52 50 61 69
5 41 25 48 44 62
Language
Grade 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
1 32 31 40 64
2 28 35 36 56 68
3 37 44 58 61 67
4 32 47 49 63 65
5 39 33 48 56 69
Spelling
Grade 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
1 29 29 51 76
2 28 41 44 60 69
3 44 42 65 60 64
4 23 41 41 66 64
5 45 32 62 57 69
If the New York schools really want success and coherence, they should give the principal at Eshelman a call!
By the way, even elite schools (and districts) can improve. Here's the math progress for an affluent school district (Manhattan Beach, CA) using a similar scripted program:
Grade 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
2 74 82 89 93 92
3 79 81 87 92 93
4 81 82 82 87 92
5 83 85 88 87 92
Thank you.
Martha Schwartz
3141 Alma St.
San Pedro, CA 90731
(Return to the NYC HOLD main page.)