As reported in the CDT, the major action item following from Monday’s Board meeting was that SCASD Superintendent Rich Mextorf would be forming a committee that would be charged with identifying alternative math programs, one of which would be pilot-tested in SCASD starting in September 2010. Presumably the decision about what curriculum would be adopted on a permanent basis would be informed by the results of the pilot test and would require much more time.
Superintendent Richard Mextorf, who started working in the district in July, said he’d bring recommendations for committee members at the next meeting. He said the committee should include members of Parents for Quality Math Education.
While the prospect of PQME members on this committee is a welcome idea (several have already volunteered to Dr. Mextorf, or will be doing so soon), it seems prudent to include others besides SCASD employees who are proponents of Investigations and PQME critics of the current program.
Take, for example, what was done in a very similar circumstance in Columbia, Missouri, another college town that after several years decided to turn away from constructivist math. That district formed a Mathematics Community Advisory Committee that included
- Business Leaders
- Community Members
- Higher Education Faculty (including mathematicians and math educators)
- Parents
- K-12 Administrators
- Teachers
There were 36 members on this diverse committee that was established “as a means for two-way communication between the district and parents and community members regarding the mathematics curriculum.” The whole process was transparent, with meetings of the committee open to non-committee members as well . SCASD would do well to follow this excellent example.
Hi! Just found your site, great work! I am in Pine Richland school district a little north of Pittsburgh. We got enVisionMATH (scott foresman addison wesley, a pearson co.) 2 years ago and its bad. Our board called it a textbook upgrade and approved it (illegally?) without parent or community input. Left brain kids – at least starting in 3rd grade -are drowning, its constructivist, has lots of weird problems and bad concepts like multiplication as repeated addition. Wanted to warn you because there are not a lot of reviews because it is so net, yand its the number one selling in US and designed to match the state test.
A clarification: The decision in Columbia, Missouri to “turn away from constructivist math” was not made by the Mathematics Community Advisory Committee (nor did they recommend this action). The decision not to allow any “reform” elementary mathematics textbooks to be considered for adoption was made unilaterally by Jim Ritter, who was, at that time, interim superintendent of Columbia Public Schools. His decision-making process was not transparent, nor was it the result of a cooperative effort among community members.
Edie – Read my original post and you’ll see that I never wrote that the Committee in Columbia made the decision to change the math program nor did I say that the Committee recommended the change. Referring to the Committee’s operation, I said that “the whole process was transparent, with meetings of the committee open to non-committee members as well,” statements I based on the published minutes of the Committee.