Larger text
Smaller text
Print
E-mail
By the numbers
Illustration by Bob Newell/Tribune-Review
The initiatives could be implemented independently of each other although they were initially presented as a package to the school board. Both initiatives have been proposed by the district's administration in an effort to help its high school juniors pass the Pennsylvania State System of Assessments (PSSA).
The state has mandated that students demonstrate proficiency in reading and mathematics as a requirement for graduation. The PSSA is one way students can do this. The district has reason to be significantly concerned about the ability of its students to "pass" the math portion of this high-stakes test. Last year, two-thirds of its 11th-grade students failed, including 90 percent of its black students (www.paprofiles.org).
I was initially concerned about how well the proposed math program would serve the district's better math students and prepare those interested in pursuing college majors or careers in mathematics, science and engineering.
Although the district has yet to recommend a specific integrated mathematics curriculum, most of the programs under consideration are significantly different in content and teaching approach from the current traditional program and, for that matter, the current integrated mathematics program now in place at Schenley High School. It's important to know that Schenley also offers a traditional math program and the district encourages its better math students to take this series of courses.
Another program called Core-Plus is being piloted at Taylor Allderdice High School this year. Core is a good example of the majority of the programs that the district's textbook selection committee is reviewing for adoption.
Despite the rhetoric of the district's math department, my research shows that these types of math programs are far less rigorous than the programs already in place for better math students in the Pittsburgh high schools. These students already pass the PSSA, 97 percent, according to the district's own statistics. These students also do well on the SAT. It would be irresponsible for the district to tamper with the success of this student segment.
The situation for other student segments is dramatically different. There is need for change, although it is far from certain that it is needed at the high school level. While doing research on this issue I have now become concerned with how well Pittsburgh Public Schools' students are being served at the elementary and middle school levels.
As I mentioned above, the math changes have been proposed to help prepare students to pass the PSSA. But the problems with the district's mathematics program are evident well before high school.
EARLY TROUBLE SIGNS
Results from the fifth- and eighth-grade level PSSAs (again, visit www.paprofiles.org) show that only 37 percent of district fifth-grade students and a meager 28 percent of its eighth-grade students could demonstrate math proficiency at these grade levels last year.
Once again, an all-too-high 80 percent of black students scored below the proficient level at the fifth-grade level, 87 percent at the eighth-grade level.
Given these results, it's no surprise students can't pass the high school level PSSA. It's also clear that the math programs in the Pittsburgh Public Schools have woefully failed to prepare many of its children in mathematics for years and that the district needs to do something earlier than high school to prepare its students for math proficiency.
Although the board majority has raised this issue, the district's administrators refuse to address it. They continue to rely on a large-scale experiment called Everyday Math and Connected Math. These programs have yet to deliver broadbased, successful results.
Everyday Math has been implemented districtwide since the 1993-94 school year (it began in kindergarten). Over the 1996-97 and 1997-98 school years, the district's math department rated the schools according to their level of Everyday Math implementation. By 1997-98, Everyday Math was used in kindergarten through fourth grade. At that time, the district identified only three schools (out of 56) as weak implementers of the program (Briars & Resnick, CRESST Report No. 528, August 2000).
Connected Math has been used in the middle schools for at least five years, although it was also field tested in some schools in the district from 1991 through 1997.
Superintendent John Thompson is fond of comparing his actions to a corporate CEO. Well, if a corporation had had a system in place for nearly 10 years showing such meager results, the program would have been scuttled and heads would have rolled.
The administration of the Pittsburgh Public Schools has instead chosen to keep the programs in place, claiming they haven't yet been "implemented fully." At the same time they want to expand this pedagogically similar curriculum into the high schools.
A BLUNT QUESTION
It's legitimate to ask if this is the administration's attempt to improve mathematics education in the district or simply cover up its failure at the elementary and middle school levels. Moreover, given the failure to fully implement Everyday Math nine years after its adoption, how likely is it that the district can actually manage an implementation of a new math program at the high school level at this time?
The director of the Pittsburgh district's math department is Dr. Diane Briars. She figures prominently in Pittsburgh as the individual most responsible for the mathematics curricula taught in city schools. She is nationally recognized as an expert in the field of mathematics education, at least within the sphere of the highly influential National Council of Teachers of Mathematics and the National Science Foundation.
Not surprisingly, she has strong professional ties to both these organizations. She is a former director of the NCTM and has served as a member of the National Science Foundation Advisory Committee for Education and Human Resources (the part of the NSF involved in curriculum development and funding the implementation of reform math programs). She also serves on the advisory board of Core-Plus, an integrated math program for the high school level.
The Pittsburgh School District served as a field development site for curriculum materials for Connected Mathematics (the district's current middle school math program) at the direction of Dr. Briars. As such, she has an obvious self-interest in seeing that these programs are adopted and/or retained. There can be benefits to such associations. At the same time, it is important to understand what biases might influence decisions.
THE CALIFORNIA EXPERIENCE
We are generally better off if we can learn from the experiences of others. So, it would be educational to take a look at what has been happening in California. California is usually a leader in adopting new educational programs. The state was no different when it came to adopting programs that followed the new mathematics standards developed by the NCTM. The state endorsed and began using these reform programs over a decade ago. By 1996 after several years of reform math, the state's students finished near the bottom of the nation on the National Assessment of Educational Progress.
More recently, over 50 percent of entering freshmen in the California State University system have had to take remedial math (intermediate algebra or lower). It's notable that these students have come from the top 30 percent of high school graduates.
The California State Board of Education has now backed away from its endorsement of NCTM standards-based programs. They adopted new state mathematics standards in December 1997 that the Fordham Foundation has rated better than those of Japan. They have also evaluated and recommended curricula to support achieving their new standards.
Most of the math programs under consideration by the administration of the Pittsburgh schools for the high schools and all of the math programs now used in the elementary and middle schools (Everyday Math, Connected Math and CPM Algebra) were rejected by the California State Board of Education on the recommendation of a panel of mathematicians. That means that state funds cannot be used to purchase these curricula.
No one can be aware of the PSSA test results and not recognize that something needs to be done. The school board and the administration need to find a way to provide students with remedial mathematics support, but at all levels. But it's also time for the district's administration to forthrightly and comprehensively evaluate its mathematics program at the elementary and middle school levels before it proposes to adopt anything new. The district is obligated to consider what is best for its students regardless of whatever professional ties to the NCTM its administrators may have or whatever money is dangled as leverage to the district to adopt specific programs.
We should try to learn from the mistakes of others and shouldn't ignore what is happening in a state as large and technologically centered as California. There are valid, research-supported reasons to question and/or oppose the math programs recommended by the district's administrators.
Everyone (and, I do mean everyone) needs to leave their pride, egos and professional connections at the door, take a deep breath and do what is best for the children in this district.
Adele J. Hlasnik serves as a Parent Key Communicator with Superintendent John Thompson. She has two children in Pittsburgh Public Schools and lives in Squirrel Hill.
