Diana Dixon-Davis: My name is Diana Dixon-Davis. I have three sons. Two are still in LAUSD. I'm elected parent representative of school based management, school site council at Chatsworth High School and Lawrence Middle School, and I'm also demographer, epidemiologist and have a Masters Degree in those fields.
I'm here to talk about math options at the secondary level. In April, we did call and we ended up speaking before the curriculum committee earlier this month [actually, May 14], and I did want to thank David Tokofsky and John Liechty, and Bob Collins for hearing our plea and helping us with some of our concerns.
However, there are still larger issues left, and this is concerning integrated math, traditional math, and the wholesale adoption of one over the other.
I was talking to a teacher the other day and they said, "You know, every time LAUSD has a problem, instead of trying to figure out what's causing the problem and teaching the program more effectively and seeing why some kids succeed and others fail, the solution is throw it all out. Start something new." Unfortunately, that "start something new" right now is LASI's program on integrated math. Integrated math [i.e., LASI] is less than one twentieth of one percent of all the LAUSD money per year. They have a $15 million grant spread over 3 [really 5] years, and yet this tail, let alone, actually a hair on the tail of a dog, is wagging the entire district. And they have decided that they will have everybody adopt integrated math.
In your own publication [holds up document], it says, as of now 337 schools have enrolled in the LASI project. Another 200 schools are expected to join next year, with the final 50 joining the year after. The hair of the dog is literally wagging the dog.
We are worried about this because there is no data, no research, and yet we are going for 100% adoption of an untried program. This is much like what happened with Whole Language. We had a program adopted without real data and research behind it. We kept wondering what's going on? Why are we doing this?
We have major conflicts of interest. Sarah Munshin, the author of the book that's being promulgated by LASI, is also the major consultant to our cluster--to LASI. I was told you don't do this. Unfortunately she is still a major consultant to LASI and to our cluster. Secondly, LASI is paying for 40% of our new textbooks. That's an incentive in any high school because we're always strapped for cash for buying books. And when they say if you adopt this program, we'll pay for 40% of your books, all of a sudden people start adopting it.
Some of the major problems with the integrated math have been iterated before: it's a three year program, you can't move in and out, most of the best schools do not use integrated math. In fact, our best schools, our gifted magnets, do not use integrated math. And the 100 best schools in the country, in a recent Newsweek article, they found of the schools that were reached, 75% use only traditional math, 5 schools offered both, and one school was the only one that used integrated math whole cloth.
[Note: Newsweek, March 30, 1998 listed the "Top 100 High Schools" in the nation according to its own criteria in the article "Class Struggle," by Jay Mathews. A group of parents and teachers in Juneau, Alaska attempted to contact these schools to find out which math programs they use. Only 30 schools responded. Of these, 24 said they offered only traditional math programs, 5 schools offered both traditional and integrated math, and one school said that it offered only integrated math, but with modifications to suit different students' needs and abilities--David Klein]
I had a lot more things to say. I think this is an issue that needs more than 3 minutes here at the board. I think we really need to have a wholesale discussion of the problems with integrated math, the need for accommodating students' needs as they move around the districts, and also if they move into other school districts in other states where integrated math is not yet accepted. We need real data, real research.
Just one parting comment, I'm sorry. LASI's own data--I got a copy of their report under the table--shows that students taking integrated math are doing less well than students who are taking traditional math, number one. Number two, minority students are doing less well. Latino and Asian students are doing less well than they were before with traditional math. And the only students who are benefiting are African American students. And I think we need to really seriously look at a program that is only benefiting 10% of our students and leaving 90% behind. Thank you.
Barbara Beaudreax (LAUSD Vice President, and acting chair for this session): I have another speaker on the same subject, Dr. David Klein?
David Klein: I have some handouts for the Board. How do you handle that?
Ruben Zacarias (Superintendent of LAUSD): (gesturing) She'll get them from you.
David Klein: My name is David Klein. I'm a professor of mathematics at Cal State Northridge. I'm a strong supporter of public education. I want to see the best for LAUSD.
My purpose here is to discuss the LAUSD math standards and to urge you to replace them by the California math standards.
To be useful, standards need to be specific and give grade by grade benchmarks. They have to be sufficiently clear so that parents, students, teachers, and administrators know exactly what students are expected to know and be able to do. And they have to be measurable.
Unfortunately, the LAUSD math standards fail in each of these respects. They are repetitive. They are vague, and they're not measurable. You can't tell whether the students are meeting the standards or not. And they fall far below the level of the California math standards and are certainly not in conformity with them.
The California math standards, by contrast, are clear, specific, testable. They're internationally competitive. They give specific benchmarks for each year. They specify what a student has to know and be able to do. But they place no restrictions on the teaching method. They contain a balance of concepts, basic skills, and high level problem solving skills.
As an aid to understanding the comparison, I've given you a table--that's this particular handout [holds up document].
There are a number of categories for each of the standards. You see that in most of the categories, the LAUSD standards are blank. They simply don't address the issues. For example, there's no trigonometry specified whatsoever in the LAUSD standards in all of the grades K through 12. Is that the will of the Board that trigonometry is now no longer part of the education system in K-12?
Triangles. The word "triangle" simply does not appear, at all, in the standards. Calculators are encouraged even at the early grades, first, second, and third grade, by the LAUSD standards.
Whether or not LAUSD adopts the California math standards, the STAR test next year will be based, in part, on them. And I think our district will be much better off if we prepare in advance for that. If you adopt the California math standards, you will not be making a mistake. They've received national acclaim. The Fordham Foundation [holds up document], of which I've given you a portion of the report, commissioned a study of 46 states, the District of Columbia, and Japan. California's math standards ranked number one out of all of those. I've also given you a letter that I wrote which is signed by 100 California mathematicians which expresses support for the California math standards. The CSU Chancellor has also strongly supported them.
Valerie Fields (LAUSD Board Member): I don't know who's the new chairman of the ICSA [sp?]. George? But I think this certainly would be appropriate for the curriculum and instruction committee to go into some depth.
I wanted to assure Ms Davis that I had a meeting just last week with John Liechty and Bob Collins on this subject because I too was concerned that we were going to go down the path of Whole Language--only this time, Whole math--and I want to make sure--two things--one is that we always provide the traditional...
David Tokofsky (LAUSD Board member): Options.
Valerie Fields: ...math in every school so that any child who has a special ability in math or a special interest in math can take calculus or trig or whatever he or she wants to take. And those children, who are perhaps less adept, can continue with LASI. They assured me that is the case and would continue to be the case. I also feel we should not adopt, districtwide, any program, until after it's been piloted and there has been a reasonable evaluation about how kids are doing.
If they're doing better, terrific. If they're not, then we shouldn't adopt it. If we could make that recommendation to Mr. Kiriyama, that this be a topic for investigation by the curriculum and instruction committee...
Barbara Boudreaux (Vice President of the LAUSD Board): Mr. Superintendent?
Valerie Fields: ...both this topic and the topic...
Barbara Boudreaux: Thank you, we'll make...
Valerie Fields: Pardon?
Barbara Boudreaux: We'll make that recommendation.
Valerie Fields: Yes. And the topic of our standards and how they stack up with California's standards. Certainly we want to have the strongest standards possible.
Barbara Boudreaux: Mr. Superintendent, we have someone in the audience who's from the LASI office, division of instruction, Ms MacIver [ Note: the spelling of this name is a guess]. She might have something to share to these comments.
Ms MacIver: Good evening Madam Vice President of the Board, members of the Board, and Superintendent of the district. I'm representing the division of instruction. As you know, Carmen Schroeder and many of the other administrators of the division of instruction are in Palm Springs doing leadership. Carol Takemotto waited as long as she could and asked me to respond. This is not our first encounter with Ms Diana Dixon-Davis or with Dr. Klein. And what they would like for me to do is to request that they put their statements in writing and present them to us with their sources, citing the sources of their data, and to give the specifics--because I do know that something that Ms Davis Dixon said about the LASI report was not quite directly quoted--so that we can respond in writing to the Board. And therefore take a look. And looking at the Stanford-9, since we only have the 96-97 data, we have not yet had a chance to analyze the 97-98, it would be unfair to make a motion, or to make a decision at this point that what we are trying to do is not helping the students. So, we would like to have their information in writing and we would like the opportunity to come back to the board in writing. That would include the division of instruction and LASI
Barbara Boudreaux: Mr. Superintendent?
Ruben Zacarias: I thank you for your comments. I totally agree with Ms Fields that this is a proper and important subject to be fully discussed at a board subcommittee meeting. ICSA [sp?], it's called, the curriculum committee? I would also say to you that as an educator, I believe in offering as many options as possible to our students. It shouldn't necessarily be an "either or." You can have both because different students learn in different ways with different approaches, so I would hope, Madam Chair, that the board takes this important subject up for full discussion.
Barbara Boudreaux: Mr. Kiriyama, while you were out, we were thinking of having this as a part of the agenda for your committee meeting, LASI
Valerie Fields: and the standards
Barbara Boudreaux: and the standards. Jeff has a comment.
Jeff Horton (LAUSD Board member): I think we should have it on every year. I mean, we have had it in every year. We had an extensive discussion this year under David's [Tokofsky] leadership. We had several discussions of it in the instruction committee when I was chair--I mean, we've had a lot of discussion of this and seen a lot of data--and I mean--which doesn't really support what we heard tonight. But we have to do it again, I agree. I mean, we have to be constantly evaluating. I just heard from both the speakers some real misunderstandings as to what it's even about, and I think the board--maybe what we need is a special committee of the whole, because I think the whole board needs to know. It is the districts effort to improve math, science, and technology instruction for all students, especially those groups that have not benefited from the traditional approach.
Ms MacIver: Could I make one final...
Barbara Boudreaux: Excuse me. Mr. Tokofsky you wanted...
David Tokofsky: The division did produce a document I believe--correct me if I'm wrong--that compares the district standards and the state standards, and how our standards match with the state's, right?
Ms MacIver: And my understanding is the assessment that ours went beyond the state standards.
David Tokofsky: But there is a document that could be provided to the public that would-- because one thing is of concern that we mentioned before is that there's a whole bunch of grants that the district will apply for and if we don't match the state standards, we're ineligible, and that's why, I think, we had to do that. And if it's going to be subjected to the rigors of professors of math--that would be great--who've worked on the state standards and compared. But if you could have Ms Schroeder provide that--I think she gave it to me last week and it might be available for all Board members and the public.
Valerie Fields: And Dr. Klein
David Tokofsky: Yeah, the public
Barbara Boudreaux: Thank you
Ms MacIver: May I make one last comment. I think what we want to be concerned with is also equity and making sure we don't decide that students at one part of the district will be given traditional education and students at another part will be given something different. And in having meetings with persons form the UC system, the integrated mathematics and science is accepted at an equal level for the a-f requirements the traditional algebra, geometry, algebra II.
David Tokofsky: So we can make sure all children get triangles.
Barbara Boudreaux: Right. Let me say that I agree with all of the comments form the Superintendent and Ms Fields and Jeff and all the Board members that we need this as a topic for our agenda in the future and also making sure that we have correct data so that no misinformation goes out.
David Tokofsky: There's an evaluation that they provided too, from an outside evaluator.
[new topic]