Look at the Details

Abstract

We need to be vigilant and careful and not be fooled by the seemingly impressive credentials and writing of critics, Mr. Becker and Mr. Jacob respond. Content knowledge is no substitute knowledge of how students' understanding develops and can be nurtured. DEBORAH Haimo and James Milgram question our use of the phrase political clout and assert there is no evidence to support it. We ask Kappan readers to consider the following events and judge themselves. In 1997, four mathematicians (Milgram included) substantially revised the draft California mathematics standards. Their changes were accepted by the state board of education without seeking public input or the involvement of K-12 teachers. (The fact that four people, acting as advisors to the board, met in private to discuss the revision of a public document appears to violate the state's public meeting act.) In 1998, three mathematicians wrote sample problems the state mathematics framework, and two mathematicians and a cognitive psychologist wrote significant portions of the framework. None of them discussed this work in public as part of an open process. Some of the work was presented to the Curriculum Commission, which had little or no time to work with it. But most of the sections cited in our March 2000 article were not contained in the last draft made available public comment (on 8 October 1998); they were inserted in November just prior to the state board's vote. During 1999, the state board adopted a new policy requiring panelists to have a Ph.D. in mathematics as a prerequisite to serving on a Content Review Panel (CRP) the California K-8 mathematics adoption - a doctorate in education was not allowed. Although members of the Materials Advisory Panel included and did review materials, in the end it was the CRP members who determined the state board's decisions. And in the case of Everyday Mathematics, a CRP report was rewritten by a mathematician two months after the panels had disbanded. Also during 1999, two mathematics professors reviewed and rewrote AB 1331 professional development materials, and the state board accepted their judgments without allowing any further review (and subsequently appropriated $43 million AB 1331 programs during the 2000-01 school year). So in California, the mathematics standards, framework, instructional materials, and professional development have all been very tightly controlled by a small group of university mathematicians. High-stakes tests and accountability measures that have profound effects on the lives of and are linked to all of these policies. Yet the voices of the who know their best have been omitted from the process. In our view, being allowed to circumvent the public process and get a single vision of policy uniformly imposed on a large state like California is ample evidence of political clout. The other main criticism leveled by Haimo and Milgram is that we distort the California framework discussions by confusing comments intended with expectations students. The discussions in question all come from Level Considerations, chapter 3 of the Mathematics Framework California Public Schools, Kindergarten Through Grade 12, not from the Instructional Strategies or Professional Development chapters, where such information might have been appropriate. The focus of chapter 3 is on how mathematics is to be presented to students. In fact, the question of whether the passages are written for teachers or for students completely misses the point. Of course will read the framework, not students. The point of our examples was to demonstrate that the formal thinking of mathematicians about mathematical content is now driving California policy with respect to how children are first to encounter mathematical ideas. This is true whether discussions focus on how might view the mathematics being presented or on how should receive the mathematics. …