"Public Relations: This effort will be the most important endeavor for us this year" (p. 1)
The attitude in this statement fits with the behavior and attitude we have seen from school administrators and shows their feeling that our objections to CPM result not from our careful comparison of the material in CPM courses relative to traditional, but rather from a failure in public relations on their part. Not only do they lack respect for our intellectual capacity and judgment, some of those associated with CPM seem to view our children's education somewhat like others view laundry detergent. The material that follows supports such a conclusion.
"The Directors of CPM have discussed the issue of public relations at length and solicited the advice of various professionals in the public relations field, the media and the professional ranks. Everyone is unanimous that we must 'tell our story' if we hope to win support of parents and the public. ... To help get our message to all of these people we have included several resources in this mailing ... it has been arranged for different audiences and different purposes." (p.3)
Some of the materials provided include:
Some excerpts from two of the above sections, including comments on the material, follows.
PROACTIVE SUGGESTIONS:
Many of these suggestions are common sense things which we would hope that all teachers would do. These include making expectations clear to students, having a tutoring program or well defined office hours, meeting regularly with others teaching the same course, discussion of course goals and methods before and during the year with the Principal and Department Chair, and communicating with parents.
Others are biasing by design, including especially inviting parents and/or administrators "to visit a GOOD CPM classroom" (Emphasis in original) as well as "Emphasize the connection with U.C. Davis and that the courses are fundamentally Algebra I, Geometry, Algebra II."
One suggestion, or its extensions, is something that many of us may have thought was an effort by caring teachers to do the best for our children, CPM or not: "Make a traditional text available on request or send one home for reference."
ENCOUNTERS WITH THE MEDIA:
This section from the newsletter deals with getting a 15-30 second CPM-positive sound bite on the air. "It is based on a CMC workshop attended by Judy Kysh. She made these points at the CPM Teacher-Leader Workshop last July."
It is interesting to note that Ms. Kysh, one of the prime authors of CPM, is responsible for the points in this document. This demonstrates that the desire to inflict CPM on our children, with or without solid documentation of its effectiveness, comes from the very top of the CPM hierarchy.
Some of what is described in this section is good advice for any public presentation including suggestions to plan ahead, decide on key points ahead, choose examples ahead, have technical information available in written form, prepare for the worst possible question, and use simple, direct, active language.
Other sections deal more specifically with the ways to manipulate the media. These sections make it clear that the designers and supporters of CPM do not view discussions of data on CPM effectiveness to be their strong suit.
Points taken directly from the document (Emphasis in the original):
(sic) not your friend.
It is important for those of us who have serious concerns about CPM, the public and the press to be aware of the nature of the CPM public relations campaign and to realize that it extends from the top of the hierarchy to the bottom. Be aware when a teacher, administrator, or CPM guru says something, that it is likely to be part of an orchestrated effort to influence public utilization of the program they have written or are committed to, even in the absence of carefully controlled, convincing, quantitative data of its effectiveness.
One specific inclusion in the Newsletter is entitled "Resources for Community Education." It contains the usual misrepresentations of CPM such as "CPM has essentially the same content as other college prep courses, and the specific features of CPM that make it a richer math program" that those of us who have made direct comparisons between CPM and good traditional programs, and those of us who have seen what happens to children in CPM classes, know to be untrue as well as a statement that "the need to educate the public has never been greater." The newsletter again asserts the now disproven conclusion that their research supports the superiority of CPM.
Among the suggestions to teachers:
A second specific enclosure is entitled "Writing Letters-to-the-Editor." The introduction again indicates that the purpose of these actions is, despite the tax exempt status or CPM, to influence government action: "Teachers can no longer afford the luxury of retiring to their classrooms and letting `political issues' play themselves out on other stages. If we yield our public voice to the critics, the perception of opinion makers (the media) and the decision makers (the government) will be that these negative voices speak for the majority and speak truthfully. WHEN WE ARE SILENT THE OTHER INTERESTS WIN BY DEFAULT. .... Being angry is fine, BUT WHAT IS MOST IMPORTANT IS WHAT EACH OF US DOES ABOUT IT." [Emphasis in original].
This tells us exactly the attitude the leaders of CPM have about the selling of their program and warns us what to expect from CPM proponents. Fortunately, substitution of "Concerned parents" for "Teachers" in the above paragraph serves as a call to action for those who have seen the weaknesses of CPM and the harm it is doing to their children.
The opening statement is followed by some good advice on the writing of effective letters-to-the-editor, advice which will be as useful to Whole Math opponents as to proponents.
"STEP 1: When an article appears ..., you have at best a five day window to reply. You must write immediately, fax it if possible ..., and limit your remarks to no more than 300 words.
"STEP 2: Editors are looking for letters that have spirit and passion that will stimulate readers, so a higher level of emotion is permitted here than you might use with staff or parents. However, it is always counter productive to be antagonistic.... Tailor the letter to the appropriate audience.... Use anecdotes from personal experience.... Avoid educational jargon that is meaningless to the general public...
"STEP 3; Follow up by calling the editorial page manager within one or two days."
The newsletter also includes copies of three Opinion pieces written by paid advocates of Whole Math including Jack Price, President of the NCTM (from the San Diego Union-Tribune, February 29), Jody Priselac, Co-director of the UCLA Math Project (from the LA Times, February 28), and Paul Gigante Jr., Director of the Bay Area Math Project at UC Berkeley and immediate past President of the California Mathematics Council (from the San Francisco Chronicle, January 15). It is not clear if these are reprinted with permission or merely copied.
All three pieces contain the usual Whole Math arguments about how we need to change math education to prepare our children for the modern world. Interestingly, the essays by Jack Price and Jody Priselac contain so many identical sentences and phrases that if Price and Priselac were both students they might well receive failing grades for plagiarism. Surprisingly, these similarities either go unnoticed by the people at CPM (and by local school officials who also reproduce these articles) or these people who are entrusted with educating our children see nothing wrong with such apparent contradictions to general standards of academic behavior.