There are three main reasons why we should reconsider the choice of the elementary math curriculum:  its poor track record in other school districts and two inherent flaws in its design, namely, an underemphasis of fact fluency and an overemphasis of self-discovery.

As part of its marketing outreach, the publishers of Investigations provide a list of satisfied educational customers including school districts from around the country—what you might call “success stories.”  The problem is that, in many cases, success has turned sour!  Of the 62 districts that began using this text in 2007, 36 of them in places like Seattle, Washington, Naperville, Illinois, and Syracuse, New York, have either dropped or are in the process of dropping it by 2009.  This means that over half of the school districts that at one point welcomed this new math curriculum with open arms have since abandoned it.  If the choice of Investigations has raised so much controversy all across the country, it stands to reason that this is not a problem imagined by some 700 misguided petition signers in the State College school district.  Where there’s smoke, there must be fire!

In his statement last May about the elementary math curriculum, David Hutchinson drew a sharp distinction between the disciplines of mathematics and of mathematics education:  to solve a difficult math problem, he would ask a university math professor; to discover how to teach a math concept, he would ask a math education professor.  The thing he neglects to mention is that these days education faculty and, ultimately, the textbooks they write, share a fascination for “constructivist” theories of learning.

One of the basic principles of “constructivism” is that every child learns in a different way.  This seems like a sensible foundation for an educational theory.  Problems arise, however, when this “customized” approach to teaching is taken too far.   Any education expert will admit that there are precious few studies that confirm the effectiveness of “constructivist” math curricula such as Investigations.  More important, there are an increasing number of professionals who have raised questions about the “constructivist” approach in general (see Barry Garelick on “Discovery Learning” and “Investigations Analysis” by Bill Quirk).

In my mind, the most fundamental flaw in the Investigations text is the authors’ attitude toward computation.  Virtually everyone agrees that mindless repetition of math facts is not the best approach to teaching and learning arithmetic.  But to treat the four basic algorithms—addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division—as simply one of many approaches to computation which are all equally effective shows to what degree this curriculum overreacts to teaching methods from the past.  Although the district “Action Plan” has introduced a number of steps to try and compensate for this problem, it is impossible to cancel out one of the authors’ driving motivations:  to de-emphasize fact fluency.

Another major problem is the enormous emphasis the authors place on self-discovery.  At every grade level students are encouraged to find their own way of solving a problem.  Don’t get me wrong.  I’m all in favor of teachers occasionally letting students experiment and discover things on their own.  But too much experimentation leads to inconsistency, frustration, and lack of fluency.  Surely one of our goals in 5th grade math should not be to have each student find his or her own “personal” way of doing long division!

The pendulum has swung too far in the wrong direction.  There needs to be some sort of check and balance against innovation for innovation’s sake in the math curriculum.  It’s high time that our district tried a new approach to teaching math in the elementary schools.  I urge you to vote for any candidate who will reconsider the district’s commitment to Investigations.

First of all, SCASD’s ranking compared to that of other districts around the state has dropped significantly over the past year.  Equally important, however, are the trends in the 5th grade math scores from individual elementary schools in the district (see accompanying graphs).  The percentage of  “advanced” scores in some schools (Boalsburg and Park Forest) has fallen markedly between 2007-09 and, in one case, dramatically (Easterly).  Since that same percentage in at least one school has increased (Ferguson), one wonders if the differences could be linked to the curriculum used in each school.

Next let us consider how students fared from the two schools that employed the second edition of Investigations (Grays Woods and Corl Street).   At first glance there appears to be little change in the percentage of “advanced” scores.  But if the four subcategories are combined into two larger categories, that is, combining “advanced” and “proficient” (or the dark green and light green bands on the graphs) and “basic” and “below basic” (the pink and red bands), there is a consistent pattern among fifth graders at Grays Woods of becoming less proficient in math skills.  By contrast, the Corl Street fifth grade combined scores show little change over the same period.

So what do all of these numbers and trends mean?

While I would never argue that educational success should be measured by one exam, nevertheless, there is something important, though not immediately apparent, lurking in all this data.  That “something” is the lack of improvement.  In short, the absence of a clear rise in fifth grade math PSSA scores shows that students are not thriving under this approach.  In my mind Investigations, 2nd edition, is an educational “experiment” that the School Board has decided to conduct over the entire district for the 2009-10 school year.  The burden of proof lies with those who claim that this curriculum is an improvement over previous pedagogical approaches, especially since its advocates have often used test scores as indications of success.  Since as a whole these PSSA scores have not improved, the question is how many more years must we continue collecting test results before the Board reconsiders the math curriculum?  I believe we should stop this pedagogical experiment now before our students fall even further behind.