Diana Dixon-Davis (parent activist): Thank you very much for letting all of us address you now. We're here to talk about the integrated math program and the traditional math program. I have three sons. One has already graduated from LAUSD and another at Lawrence Middle school and a third at Chatsworth High School. With me today are Rona Greenstadt, who is a parent and a teacher--she teaches at LAUSD and she's also a parent of a student at Chatsworth High School and she has been heading our Chatsworth assessment and evaluation committee, where we've looked into the issue of traditional math and integrated math at the high school.
And also Dr. David Klein is with me. He is from Cal State Northridge. He is a professor of mathematics there and he was one of the evaluators of the newly adopted standards and he's going to be talking about the standards and their relationship to the curriculum.
Why are we here? Well, for this whole past year we had a surprise. In September of 1997, all of a sudden we walked into the high school and the middles school and in the 8th grade they were only offering integrated math, no algebra I. In the high school similarly all the students who had not started a math program were put into integrated math. It was 100% adoption with no options for traditional or integrated math. And we asked, why such a sudden change? And we were told, well, that the math cadre, the cluster administrator, and the principal had decided that they were going to eliminate all traditional math and put in its placed integrated math. And I asked what is the data? Why are you doing this? What is the purpose? And they said, well, we think integrated math will do better for the kids, will bring more kids in.
We've been working with the LASI and other people on this issue and we feel this is the best way. Well, many of us have some concerns about this and we tried to work within the system for the past year. We are both LEARN and school based management. I sit on both school based councils and we thought all such major decisions would be brought to all the parents in the community and to all the teachers. It was not. It was done by a few people at the top. We don't question the motives of the reformers. We question the procedures. We feel the math cadre has a conflict of interest. The major consultant to the math cadre is one of the co-authors of the book that was adopted. The McDougall integrated math textbook. We feel that, plus the LA-SI providing 60% of the purchase price of the those textbooks also swayed, perhaps, people who could have taken a broader look at this issue.
We are asking that--right now we are finding that integrated math does not cover all the needs of the students. In fact even with the Golden State [exam] s, the student has to take two years of integrated math to get enough to cover algebra I, so there are some deficiencies in this program. When we bring this up, people are very upset.
What do we want out of this? Why are we here?
What we're asking for is that the school board send a clear message that says that you'll meet the needs of all students. You'll both have a traditional math sequence as well as the integrated math sequence. And why do e need both?
First, there are students with different learning styles. I have a student who is learning disabled, who has problems with languages. A language based math series will take away the one thing he's good at, which is mathematics and looking at things theoretically, rather than language based. So, for him, integrated math will be difficult. Secondly, we're not accommodating the fact that we have students moving in and out of our schools all the time. Only half of our students at Chatsworth actually matriculate from Lawrence Middle School and Nobel Middle School. So those 50% of students who come from other schools where algebra is offered, they have to either repeat, lose part of their credit for algebra I, or jump into a class where they've missed the geometry. It's a three year sequence. You're requested to take all three. And you can't just jump in the middle of it unless you take all three. You don't get all the material you need at the end. And another reason is when we do mathematics we're not just doing it for the fun of it. We're getting prepared for advanced math and science. Those students who want to take the AP calculus, physics, the advanced mathematics can and should get a more rigorous dense mathematical program that is offered in traditional math. Integrated math works for another type of student who is less mathematically inclined, who is less able to quickly accumulate the mathematical knowledge. Also, we want good studies done. We want to have--if an adoption is done, 100% adoption--before that is done, let's pilot the program. Let's do real statistical studies with valid criteria to see what works and what doesn't and for whom, and not just throw out the baby with the bath water. We had the experience with Whole Language a couple of years ago and we really don't want to repeat hat again.
Anyway, that's why we're here and thank you for listening to me. And we have two other people.
David Tokofsky (LAUSD board member and chair of the Curriculum Committee): I have David Klein on the list and then Rona Greenstadt. You have approximately five minutes. If you could keep it closer to three, and then if there are any questions you could respond back.
David Klein: I actually have two subjects to address.
David Tokofsky: O.K.
David Klein: One is very simple. I came to urge you to adopt the California math standards in place of the LAUSD math standards. The CA math standards are vastly better. It's no comparison. In a few days, there will be a comparison going up on a website for you to look at, which will be contributed to by several world leading mathematicians who are concerned about the issue, since LAUSD is such a large school district.
I don't know if you're aware of it, but the LAUSD math standards entirely omit trigonometry. Is it the intention of LAUSD that high school graduates should have zero exposure to trigonometry? There are numerous defects within the LAUSD standards. Calculators are encouraged in the 3d grade, which undermines mastery of arithmetic which is a foundation--particularly fractions--for algebra in the middle schools and later. Algebra is under emphasized. The standards are vague and repetitive. Frankly, it's an embarrassment. There are many mathematicians who feel the same way.
By contrast, more than 100 California mathematicians endorsed a letter I wrote--an open letter to the new chancellor of the CSU system--in support of the CA math standards. Those are excellent world-class standards which LAUSD would do very well to adopt. I have copies of an op-ed piece I wrote for the L.A. Times a week and a half ago on this subject, which I'd like to leave for the board.
David Tokofsky: O.K.
David Klein: The second topic I came to address is the issue of integrated math versus the more traditional way of breaking math up into algebra I, geometry, and algebra II. Diana Dixon-Davis asked me to look at some of the books which are used for integrated math, and I did so as a professional mathematician. And I can tell you I was horrified. The integrated approaches that I have seen in the books that were given to me are incoherent, disorganized, and they omit crucial topics. They present mathematical topics in a way which doesn't make any sense. Let me read to you a quote from a former chairman of the Sanford math department who continues as a professor. Ralph Cohen wrote this past August in a letter to the Academic Standards Commission:
"[Some have the view] that the Japanese and others have done better than the Americans (and particularly Californians) in achievement levels because they treat subjects in an 'integrated' fashion. This is nonsense. Just look at their textbooks! The difference is that they treat subject carefully and thoroughly, unlike any American integrated text I have seen (and I have seen far too many)."
David Tokofsky: Thank you very much. Rona Greenstadt, welcome.
[Rona Greenstadt spoke in support of choice between integrated math and "stand alone" math (meaning alg I, Geometry, alg II). She asked who makes the decision to use one or the other].
David Tokofsky: Mr. Collins, would you like to briefly respond or give any insight or direction? And we now have also back Ms Joan Evens from standards, and the LASI math and science folks, Carol.
Bob Collins: Sure, let me introduce it and then maybe Carol [Takemotto] can help. The integrated math and science programs came about as part of the national reform movement in those subject areas and sponsored by the National Science Foundation. One of the reasons that that program became so important was what we saw throughout this country as a failure of traditional mathematics for large numbers of students. In fact, we know in public education today--although alot of individuals will talk about how successful traditional mathematics is--we know 40, 50 percent of students fail algebra in the United States on a regular basis, and not just in LAUSD.
David Tokofsky: That's cause it's in Arabic.
Bob Collins: (laughs) Probably. And there probably are alot of reasons for that. But the reform movement in mathematics addresses two critical issues:
One, a change in pedagogy along with a change in curriculum
And two, it addresses the issue of all students being successful in higher levels of math.
We know that that in many cases is an idea that alot of people reject: that only certain people can be successful in higher levels of math. But the reality is, in America today, if we're not able to have youngsters successful in algebra and geometry, and algebra II a b in alot of school districts in this country, they're not even going to graduate, and so there's a need to do that.
David Tokofsky: Bob, I think the people who spoke left, so we can be real brief.
Diana Dixon-Davis: We're here!
Bob Collins: Carol, do you want to add on?
David Tokofsky: I think the key questions to answer are, who makes the decision at cluster and school site level? Is there supposed to be a choice--the options of both full paths at both schools? What is, from your point of view, the message and policy of the board with respect to those things? Also, the issue on the standards was, is there a consistency or conflict between the CA standards and the district standards? And specifically, I guess, that would even raise my question. Yesterday, Gov. Wilson's budget comments were specifically designed to take away funding from school districts that do not follow the CA state math standards. So that becomes now not just a curricular issue, but a financial issue. Then there was an issue of the books and an allegation that there is a financial conflict of interest.
[Carl Takemotto from LASI addressed these and other questions and denied any conflict of interest]
Joan Evans (director of standards, curriculum, and assessment): As Mr. Collins has already identified, the purpose of standards based education was to clearly improve student achievement. With that in mind, the first thing this district did following the adoption of their standards that met all of the ten criteria established by the National Education Goals Panel as certified by the Council for Basic Education, was we aligned--when the state adopted their standards--we aligned each of the district standards with the state standards. It only made sense to us that that alignment would be a critical step in the process because following the state adoption, we understand, of the state standards, the curriculum frameworks are going to be revised to reflect those state standards, as well as the adoption in the state's assessment test to measure those standards. And that's why as the norm referenced test, the Stanford-9 is being adjusted to reflect then those state standards. Obviously it would behoove us, and that's why we did in fact insure that our curriculum that would be based on the state's curriculum framework would address those state standards.
We also then took the next step which is, beyond the norm-referenced test we have in this district a performance based assessment, and we have made sure that that performance based assessment will also, in part, address those state standards. Additionally, our standards meet the national standards, because, for us, our students need to do more than just pass a test.
David Tokofsky: So, in a sense what you're saying is the accusation of being repetitive and vague standards--what you're saying is that's a perception, but what we have, in fact, came out in early point in our standards development in the district, and as things change at state in terms of the test, and now they're more clear and precise standards that we will have to revisit our standards and make them more clear and precise?
Joan Evans: No. Let me clarify that.
David Tokofsky: And then if you could transition to the fact that the Governor has tagged lots of money...
Joan Evans: That's why.
David Tokofsky: ...to state math standards and....
Joan Evans: That's why. We're totally connected to that. OK. For economic reasons, but for educational reasons as well. This district never intended to do what the state had always told us that they were going to do, which was to identify specific grade level standards for students and performance standards.
This district according to Goals 2000 Education America, was required to identify benchmark standards. One at the elementary level, one at the middle grade level, one at the senior high which would in fact clearly provide the benchmarks for what this district's direction would be in terms of standards.
We always knew because we worked in close collaboration with the State Department of Education that they were going to establish the performance standards at each grade level. Our standards, because we served on an ongoing basis on each of the state conferences, hearings, and discussions of their standards and the implications in terms of implementation of them, we know where they differentiate and we know, in fact, that our standards, like I have said, have met already the national criteria. That is not our concern.
Our concern is with the implementation because we know that our standards push our kids to the level of application. So, in fact, they will assure that in the event that we ever are involved in a national test, our students will meet those national standards and/or currently as they are involved in advanced placement.
David Tokofsky: I think we took a position at the federal level against the national test in math, didn't we, as a district?
Joan Evans: Given the current administration and, of course, from a historic point of view, if that changes, as you can well appreciate Mr. Tokofsky, that may be another point of consideration. But our students currently do take a national test which is the advanced placement test and that's why it was most important for us to insure that our students meet national standards.
David Tokofsky: If Dr. Klein would like to respond for about two minutes, otherwise we'll take the responses by letter and consider it as Board members.
David Klein: You won't be able to find a mathematician or scientist alive who would agree with that.
David Tokofsky: With what?
David Klein: With the equivalence of the LAUSD standards with the CA standards. They are day and night. They are vastly different. It's not a matter of perception whether or not there is trigonometry there, for example. That's not just my opinion; you can read it. It's going to go up on the web, many, thousands of people are going to see it in the next few days. It's clear and it's obvious that the LAUSD standards are very very weak.
You know, just speaking of test scores, I come from the CSU system. Statewide this year, 54% of our entering freshmen had to take remedial math, mostly at the 7th grade level. In the L.A. area, it's much higher. Cal State Northridge it's 67% of the entering freshmen--from this school district--have to take very remedial math. I'm talking about adding fractions and so on. The percentages have been increasing each year since 1989 and that correlates very well with the implementation of this reform math stuff.
Bob Collins: Dr. Klein, can I ask you a question? On the CSU math test itself, what is the highest level of mathematics tested on that test?
David Klein: It's, uh, elementary algebra, a little bit of geometry uh, ...
Bob Collins: My review of it when we took a look at it is there's some trigonometry, some calculus on the test.
David Klein: Calculus? I don't think so.
Bob Collins: I'm just concerned because the CSU standards, or not the CSU standards, [rather] the entrance standards are the minimum standards and I really want to take a look at the test itself.
David Klein: I think you should. It's called the ELM, Entry Level Math Exam.
Bob Collins: Correct. uh really test material that our students aren't required to learn as a condition of entering CSU, but that's another issue we need to look at with CSU.
David Klein: Well, they should be required to learn. We're talking about adding fractions, doing very elementary things...
David Tokofsky: I think this debate could be solved by having a sample of the test given to board members, and [if] somebody in the margins wants to take a look at the level, we'll take a look at it. But I appreciate your presentation. Anything else you'd like to submit, come back in another meeting. We will continue to look at it. We have a concern, obviously, both on a financial level, and a curricular level on what you've mentioned.
David Klein: Just a final note. I'm really tired of failing two thirds of my calculus students, and I wish they'd learn some algebra and arithmetic when they come out of LAUSD.
David Tokofsky: OK, OK.
John Liechty (director of Middle Schools): I just feel that's a cold shot. If you're failing 2/3 of your kids, we ought to be looking at a whole instructional program. I didn't know we went into business to fail kids. And this pointing the blame kind of thing, really--I gotta tell you, as the father of four children in this system that went through college--I take issue with. Because what I'm seeing right now is this pointing. This should be about our children and it should be about us coming together collaboratively, and not about the adult agendas.
Obviously the work load that we have in the public sector--going on to the university--is very critical, but the dignity and worth of our children should never be determined by whether they can enter or pass a math test at the college level that somebody else created for them.
What we've got in this industry, folks--I need to say to say it because I'm the father of four--is we've got a system that's not inclusive; it's exclusive. And we're trying to build from K-12 a different culture that we can include more youngsters in. And I thought we need to work together in doing that, and not this, "I'm failing two thirds of my kids."
I'd feel very unsuccessful as a teacher, and did, if I had to fail 2/3 of my youngsters because we weren't talking together about building programs that we could believe.
[Applause from staff in the room]
David Tokofsky: OK, thank you very much, John.
Valerie Fields (LAUSD Board member): But I do want to have for my own comfort level, the transiency problem and whether or not the board should have a policy that we must offer a choice at every school, so that if a kid moves from Lawrence to Paul Revere, they can have the same offerings.
[John Liechty agreed and said this would be a major focus this year]
David Tokofsky: Thank you very much, John. And again, we do have both an instructional mission which John passionately presented, and we also have the financial concern which is to say that much, including one of the challenge grants that will be put before us--or one of the grants--is directly related to whether or not we are in accord with the state math standards, and if we are not in accord, we will learn the hard way. Just as the audit on Assembly Bill 3482 on phonics and Whole Language will check whether or not we purchased the correct materials as instructed by law, we will also be held accountable if the state math standards are such, and we are ignoring them--that we would lose any resources, past, present, and future, for being out of compliance with the state math standards. So, having concluded with that, and the hour is moving on...
[new topic]