Board of Education candidates discuss issues in math education

The Pelham Math Committee met separately with each of the four candidates for the two open Board of Education seats in an effort to get their views on Investigations, what makes a strong elementary math program, and how they’d address parental concerns about math if they were elected, among other things. The PMC is not endorsing any particular person as a “math” candidate. Rather, we are presenting a summary of each candidate’s answers to the six questions posed by the PMC so parents concerned about math education in Pelham can see for themselves the views each holds. Answers were edited only lightly, for clarity. Answers rotated by candidate, starting in reverse alphabetical order.

Important note: Once founding PMC member Christine Rosskopf decided to run for the Board of Education, she withdrew from the activities, decisions, meetings, etc. of the PMC. She had absolutely no part in crafting these questions or any involvement in this process and is seeing all the answers when everyone else is, on their publication.

1. From your experience or knowledge what — if any — problems, gaps or shortcomings do you see in the district’s current K-5 math program, Investigations?

MADELINE SMITH: First, from my own experience, my son is only in first grade but I do have my recollection from my daughter. It is quite different. My daughter was way ahead of where my son is at this point. I see it as a missed opportunity for Eric. He could have learned more. There wasn’t enough math for him. Math is so important, he could have benefited from more. Very often there’s not more than one problem per week — a basic addition problem. I would have liked to have seen more problems, more math facts. I would liked to have seen more questions on addition and subtraction.

Anecdotally, there are a lot of different views out there. I have spoken to a lot of parents who are very unhappy and have had to supplement their kids. I have also spoken to parents who love it. So it’s hard to know. What I do like about it is the concept of it — the idea of understanding math, the visualization perspective. But I haven’t gotten to the point where I am convinced the basic Investigations program goes far enough. I have spoken to a lot of parents who receive a lot more supplemental work (at some schools). There is a huge lack of consistency by grade, by teacher and by school.

CHRISTINE ROSSKOPF: There is a big gap in computation skills and basic math facts. There are three types of math knowledge. Investigations does a great job on the first one — number sense and understanding of numbers and the manipulatives, which for kids that learn that way, are good. But beyond that it offers no opportunity to develop computation skills.

MICHAEL RECCA: From what I understand, it teaches the strategies but does not hammer home the algorithms; it doesn’t teach people that 2 x 2 is 4. The algorithm part of the math program is weak, where I suppose it is needed. It does a good job of teaching number sense, the idea of developing intuition first. But it is weak on algorithms.

PAUL PRENCIS:  A good teacher can take a good textbook or a bad textbook and do wonders. Investigations is a tough program to teach well. If it were being done well, the results might be different. If it were me picking the math program, I wouldn’t put Investigations on the list. Investigations has huge weaknesses that need to be supplemented. I teach math in a balanced way and that is how I believe it should be taught to all children.

2. What do you believe are the elements of a strong elementary math program?  While we know no program is perfect out of the box, are there any curricula or programs you believe work better than others as a core program for elementary math education? Why are they stronger or better?

ROSSKOPF:  I can’t point to a particular program. In connection with finding out about Investigations, I have seen surveys and studies of how different programs work. A balanced program that grounds kids with a solid foundation, not just number sense but computation, that is challenging, that offers opportunities for differentiation, that is not too language-heavy — which adds to the issue for ELL students — that is the kind of program I would like to see.

RECCA: I have not done a study of all programs. Five to six years ago when we looked at elementary math programs, I am told that five or six programs were considered.  I have heard that Singapore is 95 percent Common Core ready and that it was considered when the programs were looked at years ago.

I don’t understand everything about the most important elements of a math program or each program’s strengths or weaknesses. Teaching with the pictorials, getting the number sense, is important. But without learning the algorithms you will spend your whole life counting pennies to see if you have a dollar or a dollar-fifty. The question is, when should we teach it? And just because something is the new wave in education doesn’t mean it is the best way.

PRENCIS: It is troubling that Investigations and Scott Foresman Addison Wesley are reviewed so poorly in the independent studies. But many math programs still available today suffer from the research about their effectiveness being in its infancy. The studies are immature. I believe there has been some proven success with Think Math, which is a more balanced program that is used in Eastchester where I teach. Any good program or curricula needs a balanced approach of application, skill-building and practice and understanding.

SMITH: I’m not a math expert. I’d like to see a program that has a lot of sequences that build from once concept to another. From counting to measurement to graphing to place value, things like that. I have seen some of some of these things and very little of some of these things. The disparity from school to school is a problem. The only program that has caught my attention is Singapore Math. But as far as I know there is no program out there everyone is willing to say is best. A program should dig deep, be more clear in how one area builds to the next, have repetition, be more structured and have more math facts. Investigations as a concept is terrific, Whether it should be a base program or a tool, I don’t know. If it’s a base program, we have a lot of work to do filling in core standards gaps. I don’t know what the ideal program is.

3. How will you approach parental concerns about Investigations? 

RECCA: I believe dealing with parental concerns with any curriculum issue begins with the principal and then the assistant superintendent for curriculum. If a parent came to me I would facilitate a meeting with (assistant superintendent) Peter (Giarrizzo ) and the curriculum supervisor to see what solutions or remedies can be made. Investigations is different because parents have been through those routes. I’m waiting to hear from Rutgers. I am not a fan of the study. I think it will be a waste of money because the math committee won’t like it because they believe it is biased, and they just wanted more inclusion in the ongoing review of the curriculum. And the community won’t like it because it was a waste of money.

PRENCIS: Any new program comes with a steep learning curve. School district change is like steering a big boat. My concern with looking for an immediate change would start with getting buy-in from teachers since the teachers on the committee that considered the math programs before Pelham adopted Investigations preferred the program — so there must have been buy-in from teachers.  I am also concerned about the costs of making a change, both the costs of a new program and of professional development. It would not be financially responsible to make a change right now.

SMITH: Let’s see what the results of the Rutgers evaluation are and see what they are proposing. I would urge people to wait for the results. After, as with all curriculum evaluations, we have to look at our programs in the context of the process we have in place. I would direct people to Peter Giarrizzo, he’s in charge of curriculum. If you were to tell me concerns continue at such a level that it is concerning, then the board does need to get involved. I’d also like to see the results of this year’s state assessment of sixth graders. And I’d like to see the Acuity test, which is being used as a stand-in since state assessments aren’t received in time.

I’m interested to see how many people take the math survey. I raised that issue with the BOE early in the year and asked for a survey because I was hearing so much anecdotal evidence of parents doing supplementation or teaching math on their own at home. I’m very interested in seeing the results, what the Rutgers team proposes in terms of supplementing. Those are key things as we go forward. If the survey shows the majority of people are supplementing, we want to make sure we get to a place where parents don’t need to do that. But that may not be the case. We have to keep an open mind.

ROSSKOPF: I would like to see the district form a committee to find a new math program and answer parent concerns. Parents who like Investigations should be consulted with and brought in so the result is balanced.

4. As a BOE member, would you support a task force/committee of parents, teachers, administrators –similar to the effort made in other nearby communities like Edgemont to explore stakeholder concerns and evaluate currently-available math programs to both determine whether Investigations is right for our teachers and children and to, potentially, identify a program or programs that would be ideal for use in the district?

PRENCIS: I believe that community input — parent input, teacher input — are all critical. I would absolutely support a committee or task force.

SMITH: Generally speaking, yes, I support the idea of having a community committee or task force. However, given that we’ve spent the time and the money on this Rutgers evaluation process, we need to give it a fair shake and see what they have to say. We have so many issues facing us this year, I don’t know that it will be a top priority to put together a task force on Investigations. That doesn’t mean we close the books on it. But we have to absorb and live with the recommendations of the evaluations.

I just don’t want to jump on that bandwagon as soon as the evaluators finish their job. I don’t know the cost of replacing our current system with a new one but that matters. I do think it is very important to study and track these kids through high school because if there are adverse results from Investigations, it would show up in higher level math.

ROSSKOPF: Absolutely.

RECCA: I wouldn’t support any type of committee until August or September and until we have the opportunity to dissect the results of the survey/study. Investigations has to be here next year. The process is deliberate because big change in a district can’t happen overnight. All stakeholders need to be involved. You can’t make a decision that impactful overnight because it is not prudent and not responsible. But I would absolutely support parent involvement in any future study.

5. What would a fair evaluation of our K-5 math program look like?

SMITH: A thorough interview with all the teachers, parents, students, survey by the group of the teachers, parents, administrators.

ROSSKOPF: I don’t know that I would evaluate in the sense of how Investigations is working in our classrooms. I’d offer this as a way to evaluate: Take the California state test questions and see if your kids can answer the questions at the same grade level and use that as a first gauge. I would also look to the studies out there, the existing scores on standardized tests. I’d do a survey of the information that is already out there and make a decision.

RECCA: In this situation, I would support a different evaluation than what we use for other programs. If we need to look at our evaluation process, then we should. I’d like to see one or two math teachers from each elementary and grade describe the pros and cons to teaching and developmental education at each building. I’d want them to be tenured because they are more likely to be critical of an internal program. Then, we’d need a representative from Peter Giarrizzo’s office, two teachers from sixth grade and the curriculum supervisor to see how students are handling the transition, a representative or two from the CIAC and a BOE representative if possible.  It would need parent and community with one or two parents appointed by the PTAs from each school. That is the fairest way to get parent involvement. The BOE could reserve the right to have one or two additional appointments based on the composition of the group.

PRENCIS: I’d want to start by asking teachers (anonymously) on a scale of 1-5 whether they liked the program and thought it was effective. I imagine you’d get somewhere in the 3s, on average. Is that good enough for our district? No.

6. More than 125 parents have signed the petition to remove Investigations and replace it with a more balanced math program. Many more have expressed concerns about the quality of the program here in Pelham; some use tutors to fill the gaps, others self-teach. If all of these people were standing in front of you right now, what would you say to them?

ROSSKOPF: Let’s fix the problem. Let’s work together to fix the problem.

RECCA: I’d say, we got 127 people in one room to discuss an education issue? Wow. We have to be realistic about a timeline. It would not be prudent to replace Investigations next year. I would say there is going to be an evaluation, we want your input; we encourage you to go through the official channels of PTA. If that isn’t working, come to me. All I can do is ensure the process will be as fair and open as possible and that the process will begin in September when we will dissect the info from the survey. If you don’t hear from us by Sept 15, email me.

PRENCIS: Any program is going to be expensive in its initial purchase. What I’d rather see is us spend a fraction of the cost on the Investigations materials, and focus on having teachers agree to develop and then actually develop a curriculum using multiple sources. It’s not prudent to just try to get rid of Investigations. I’d push the curriculum director to get right on the case and find out exactly what Prospect is doing and make the other schools do the same thing. What if we created math specialists and designed a stipend-based program for a few thousand dollars a year and we had a teacher from each grade level at the schools take three or four BEPT or other classes to start and one or two a year after that. Then that person becomes the math specialist for their grade level at their building, the lead teacher for math. That alone could bring big improvement.

For now, a curriculum that uses multiple sources is the way to go until the budget constraints ease up. I’d like to see a committee of teachers all the way through high school — a cross section of teachers from elementary through high school  — who can feed into the details about what kids need more of so they succeed in later grades.  I’d like to see data disaggregated for sixth and seventh graders after this year’s state math assessments to see which schools were getting it right in elementary and then push whatever they were doing into other schools.

SMITH: I would say let’s wait to see the results of the evaluation and survey and give it a fair shot, come at it with an open mind and give these professionals an opportunity to share the results with the district. At the end of the day, I am not the expert in math. We have chosen a group that is supposed to be an expert on the topic and we need to hear what they have to say. However, we are closest to our children and we all have to track our kids’ progress after these recommendations.