Re: Math programs in the Okemos Middle Schools Jan 18, 1997
Dear Members of the Okemos Board of Education :
Exactly a year ago, we spoke to the board about the mathematics program in Okemos Middle Schools, specifically about the Connected Mathematics Project (CMP) adopted by the Kinawa Middle School in 1996. Thanks to the board’s leadership, several changes have been implemented to the middle school mathematics program this school year. No doubt, these changes if implemented properly will result in a better mathematics education for all the Okemos children.
Aside from the obvious deficiencies of the original CMP program, one of our complaints was the lack of accountability in administering new math programs in the Okemos school district. For example, it took a year before the teachers and school administration in Kinawa Middle School realized that less than half of the curriculum was taught in 1996 school year. Within a month after CMP was introduced into Kinawa’s sixth and seventh grades, many parents voiced concerns about the pace of the instruction to the teachers and principal. Unfortunately, our concerns were completely ignored. It is clear that early adjustment based on parents’ input is extremely important to minimize any potential damage caused by a new program.
When the board approved the current mathematics program on June 29, 1998, the board repeatedly said that success of the current program depends on diligent and continuous evaluation of the program to ensure that a). the mathematics programs are the same in both Kinawa and Chippewa Middle School and b). that the teachers will teach according to the approved program of incorporating traditional math with the CMP math. After learning about the math evaluation program discussed in the Dec. 7 meeting, we have the following concerns:
1. As expressed by several board members, monitoring and evaluation of the math program should start immediately, not next school year. Valuable time has been lost in the last four months. Immediate feedback before parents and even teachers forget about the current math topics being taught is important to adjust any problems the current program may have and to note any success. For children who are currently enrolled in the math program, they need a good program NOW, not next year.
2. Regarding the evaluation committee that Lee Gerard discussed in the Dec. 7th meeting, we are glad to hear that parents will be represented in the committee. We will be looking forward to know the exact composition of committee and how the parents representatives are chosen. To have a credible evaluation program, one should have an education expert who is neutral about the math program. Thus we are very disturbed about the expert recommended by Lee Gerard. Prof. Wheatley of Florida State University is a known supporter for CMP-type of program. The MASCOT math programs he helped to run in the summer is described by a lot of parents as a “super-CMP” camp. We are thus concerned that he will not give an unbiased evaluation of the CMP part of our mathematics program. To provide a credible evaluation program, an expert who is not a CMP supporter should be added. Without such balance, the credibility of the evaluation program is at stake. Prof. Gregory Bachelis of Wayne State University, a mathematics professor who is interested in middle school and high school mathematics education.
3. Even though the board approved a curriculum, supposedly blending the best of traditional math and CMP math, the execution of the program is entirely dependent on the teachers. Some classes have seen minimal inclusion of traditional math. We were told that the topics being taught were not covered in the “traditional” math textbooks. A more accurate statement is that those topics overlap so much with fifth and elementary grade materials that the traditional math textbook did not include them except for a brief review. As pointed out by Lee Gerard, the “traditional” math textbooks actually contain a blend of CMP-type teaching methods with the “traditional” teaching materials. Our curriculum is thus weighted heavily towards CMP teaching philosophy. Teaching mainly from the CMP booklets ignores major concerns voiced by the parents in the math meetings last Spring and swings the pendulum too far to the CMP.
4. One of the major source of discontent last year was the lack of any parents’ input into the mathematics program in the early stage. One obvious result of this lack of parents’ input is the large overlap between 5th and 6th grade curriculum and repetition of CMP-type activities used in the elementary schools. The administration should invite concerned and interested parents to talk to the teachers’ representatives directly before the joint teachers’ meetings. These meetings should be publicized in advance and reports should be distributed to parents afterward.
5. As Lee Gerard pointed out, the advanced placement options work very well. As far as we know, most of the students in the seventh grade math classes for sixth graders did not pass the qualifying tests but were waived into the class. The success of the program reflects the importance of parents’ involvement in assessing the ability of their children in choosing the classes best suited for them. We hope such partnership of parents will continue and extend beyond the advanced placement classes.
In closing, we urge the board to initiate immediate actions in monitoring and evaluation of the middle school math program, to form a credible evaluation team which include not only cheerleaders as experts and to include the parents’ involvement in all aspects of the program as soon as possible. Our children cannot wait for a year before we find out their education has been shortchanged. We will assist and cooperate in any way the district needs.
Sincerely yours
Larry Wroblewski for
Mark Battaglia, Ewa Danielewicz, Mark Dykman,
Debbie Isom, Kerry Jurmu, Mary Keathley, Linda Koons, Kimberly Lyne, Merry
Morash, Kate See, Betty Tsang