##### Professional Statements

**Over 200 reputable professors of Mathematics share the belief that CPM does not address the learning styles of all students, nor does it have adequate mathematical content to prepare students for college level math.**

**When searching for those Professors who would step forward to speak in favor of CPM, if we increasing difficult to find the prominent mathematicians and scientists who supported CPM.**

**Fairfield should request a Math Choice ( Option to participate or not participate in the CPM program)**

TTSD Board Meeting – January 8, 2009

Public Comment Speaker: Carol Feng

Can curriculum really have an impact on students’ success? Does the curriculum really make a difference as long as you have teacher buy-in to the program and excellent implementation?

I think we can all agree that curriculum is important to a student’s success because it dictates what the students’ learn. We can also agree that implementation is important for smooth transitions. So, is our concern here about curriculum or implementation? While we have undoubtedly had and continue to have implementation issues with this curriculum, we simply cannot look to implementation as the primary cause for these concerns.

**The student-centered or inquiry-based strategies employed by CPM do not account for different learning style**s.

**The textbooks are essentially void of instructional material and structured in such a way that group activities are required to investigate new concepts.**

**These texts do not support a motivated student’s desire to work independently.**Furthermore, we **have concerns centered around the deficiencies in content that will result in our children receiving a substandard mathematical education.** Modifying implementation by simply moving children to higher levels within this curriculum will not provide the additional knowledge and foundation necessary to succeed in mathematics.

**The entire CPM series suffers the same lack of depth in content. ****These are not just our opinions.** Tonight I want to provide you with what well-known mathematicians and educators have to say about CPM. Many opponents of reform math are accomplished scientists, mathematicians, and educators who often do not have a substantial financial or career stake in the math debate. They simply care about mathematics.

**James Milgram, mathematics professor from Stanford** – paraphrased from a statement to the US legislature about CPM and CPM-like math curriculums: I have taught many students whose third rate K-12 mathematics education could not be overcome no matter how hard these students were willing to work. I am especially disturbed by **the dramatic drop in content knowledge of students entering universities in recent years**. A large part of this blame rests with mathematics programs of the type recommended by the US Dept of Education as exemplary – of **which CPM is included**. These math programs **simply set too low a standard to ready a student for college level math.**

James Milgram’s statements have been echoed by over 200 individuals, including professional mathematicians, educators, and scientists who endorsed a letter of protest to the US Secretary of Education, objecting to the exemplary ratings given to these math programs – of which CPM is one. The authors of this letter contend that these math programs have serious mathematical shortcomings.

**Hung-Hsi Wu, mathematics professor from Berkeley**, paraphrased from papers written regarding mathematics education **reform addressing CPM-like curriculums**: I have seen freshman coming into my classrooms inadequately prepared for college-level math. **My reviews of reform programs find them lacking in mathematical content and practice.**

Mathematics is the universal language for science. To master a language, certain skills must be performed readily without conscious thought. Mathematics without adequate drills will not produce students who learn the language of science. The reform also raises a grave concern in a different context. The well-being of our nation is critically dependent on the existence of competent mathematicians, scientists, and engineers who evolve from K-12 education systems. Reform math puts the continuous supply of a mathematically competent workforce in jeopardy. Our country cannot afford to experiment with a whole generation of children.

**Sandra Stotsky, Harvard School of Education graduate and member of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel, coauthored an analysis on reform math ideology.** In response to the** inquiry-based learning strategy propagated by CPM and CPM-like curriculums,** they state: The reality is that students learn in a variety of ways. **Basing most learning on student discovery is time-consuming, does not ensure that students end up learning the right concepts, and can delay or prevent progression to the next level.**

**Wayne Bishop, professor of Mathematics and past member of CA’s Content Review Panel; paraphrased from a 2001 content review of CPM:** CPM does not sufficiently address the CA content standards.

**The overuse of the guess and check methodology takes away from the power of algebra**.

**CPM’s worst problem revolves around how the teacher is expected to teach the material with the student-centered approach and the overuse of group work**.

**Being told wrongly by a fellow student is far worse than being told what is correct by a competent teacher**.I have been in communication with Prof. Bishop who stands by** his content review doubting that CPM has deviated much from its main goals on teaching algebra.** However, he has also graciously offered to perform an updated content review of CPM against the Oregon State Standards.

**Clearly, there are large numbers of reputable professionals that share the belief that CPM does not address the learning styles of all students, nor does it have adequate mathematical content to prepare students for college level math.**

**However, when searching for those who will step forward to speak in favor of CPM, the prominent mathematicians and scientists are hard to find.**

Our children deserve a solid mathematical foundation that will enable them to compete in this competitive global economy. **We can only accomplish this with math choice.**

## Leave a Reply