VIDEO: Sue Middleton June 10, 2009

Investigations math at FCPS is DEAD -- The newly elected FCPS Board of Education fulfilled a campaign promise and threw Investigations math out of the school system! The local newspaper thanks parents for working to get Investigations replaced.

1. Introduction    1.0 Executive Summary    1.1 Excessive Risk    1.2 FCPS Point of View    1.3 FCPS Terminology 2. Smoking Guns    2.0 Fails NCTM Focal Points    2.1 Fails NMP 2008    2.2 US Department of Education    2.3 Bogus Success Claims    2.4 Inefficient Strategies 3. FCPS Integrity Problems    3.0 Introduction    3.1.a FCPS lied in a PIA reply    3.1.b Math Facts Harmful to Public    3.1.c Jamie Cannon violated Reg.    3.2 Multiplication was not taught    3.3 Emails were ignored / deleted    3.4 No curriculum changes?    3.5 St. Mary's County quotations    3.6 NMP 2008 timeline lies    3.7 EC standard algorithms?    3.8 TERC standard algorithms?    3.9.a Borsa 'facts' not verifiable    3.9.b Borsa ambushes Donna Crook    3.9.c Borsa proposes illegal act    3.9.d Borsa LTE false statements    3.10 Destroying documents    3.11 TERC session missing in PIA    3.12 Ann Reever denies co-principal     3.13 Marita Loose says 'go FOIA'    3.14 PIA 30-day problem?    3.15 FCPS Code of Conduct Policy    3.16 FCPS Ethics Policy    3.17 Half-truths spin a story    3.18 Curriculum Dept BoE antics    3.19 Open Meetings Act Violations    3.20 No standard Sub/Div in TERC    3.21 Enrollment up, up, up?    3.22 Homeless? Go away!    3.23 FCPS violates PIA law    3.24 Conclusion

4. Investigations    4.0 What is the big deal?    4.1 Calculator Usage    4.2 Flawed multiplication strategy    4.3 Division strategy is worse    4.4 'Standard' Algorithms    4.5 Clear and Concise Euphemism    4.6 Fails its own benchmarks    4.7 'Skip Steps' Strategy    4.8 Errors in teaching guides    4.9 Self-importance claims    4.10 Deep Understandings?    4.11 The Bottom Line 5. Fact Checking FCPS    5.0 'Get the Facts' versions & troubles    5.1 No doubling at Lincoln Elementary    5.2 St. Mary’s County: success reasons    5.3 Other Counties: really using TERC?    5.4 Mastering Math: playing with squares?    5.5 Lincoln Elementary Teachers    5.6 BoE says 'Curriculum has not changed'    5.7 Says 'standard algorithms are taught'    5.8 Only half the story? 6. Notes    6.0 For concerned Parents    6.1 For FCPS Teachers of Math    6.2 Results will not be measureable    6.3 Teach Multiple Strategies    6.4 What should FCPS do?    6.5 Six-year-olds are very smart Appendices    A.0 How to get a grievance heard    A.1 Maryland Public Information Act    A.2 Frederick News Post Coverage    A.3 Gazette Coverage    A.4 What is wrong with the MSA score?    A.5 Other Web Resources    A.6 Are you any good at math?    A.7 Questions / Comments / Feedback

• standard addition is 'taught' once (grade 4)
• standard subtraction 'taught' once (grade 5)
• standard multiplication 'taught' once (grade 5)
• standard long division not taught at all

• National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) focal points for addition, subtraction, multiplication and division [§2.0]
• National Mathematics Advisory Panel 2008 Final Report finding #11 regarding fluency with standard algorithms [§2.1].

Former Board of Education member Leslie Mansfield said the Investigations resources "were sold to the board as a supplement in the classroom -- one of many resources available to teachers -- but the materials have become the only resources in the classroom" [as per FNP 02/06/2009].

PIA5: Standard Multiplication was NOT taught: Under the Maryland Public Information Act (Freedom of Information Act), FCPS can provide no Investigations sessions, no supplemental resources, nor any other documents that shows that teachers in 4th grade taught 'standard multiplication' during the 2008-2009 school year. [view PIA letter & FCPS reply]

Read the letter that the President of the Frederick County Board of Education, (Jean Smith), refused to allow read into the public record at a Board of Education meeting. The letter was apparently handed out to all board members, but not a single board member responded to my letter -- which should tell you something about the FCPS Board of Education.

Investigations is not a textbook for students. Instead, it is a "K-5 mathematics curriculum designed to engage students in making sense of mathematical ideas" [source: Grade 1; Unit 1; Page 6]. The "curriculum units are the teaching guides" [source: Grade 1; Unit 1; Page 6]. There are additional resources, including CD's, student activity books, student math handbook, etc. It is based on work supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) under Grant No. ESI-0095450.

"for low-performing sub-populations" - Nelson Palmer, Elementary Math Curriculum Specialist, FCPS

"Parallel to these events has been the continual change to the demographics of Frederick County Public Schools as well as the continued desire for improvement. This improvement has focused not only on improved math instruction and learning for all children but specifically improvement in instruction and instructional resources that can lead to closing of significant achievement gaps FCPS for low-performing sub-populations." - Nelson Palmer, Curriculum Specialist, FCPS

"we wanted a text that would satisfy ... National Mathematics Panel’s 2008 recommendations for ... computational fluency"

• Version 1 and Version 4 of the 'Get the Facts' documents [§5.0]
• Frederick News Post [§A.2] and Gazette [§A.3] articles (bolded)
• Elementary Math Textbook Selection Overview and other documents from the Textbook Review PIA [§A.1]
• Board of Education meeting videos

• standard algorithm for adding whole numbers, a grade 2 focal point.
  Investigations mentions 'standard addition' in Grade 4 in only one class session
• standard algorithm for subtracting whole numbers a grade 2 focal point.
  Investigations mentions 'standard subtraction' in Grade 5 in only one class session
• standard algorithm for multiplying whole numbers a grade 4 focal point.
  Investigations mentions 'standard multiplication' in Grade 5 in only one class session
• standard algorithm for dividing whole numbers a grade 5 focal point.
  Investigations does not teach 'standard division'

[source] And what is meant by 'standard algorithm' is well understood by everyone in the world, except for FCPS. FCPS has improperly redefined 'standard algorithms' to mean what they are teaching (all the algorithms in Investigations). There is no question what NCTM means by 'standard algorithm'. Just go to NCTM and search and you will find examples (one seen right). The examples match what Investigations calls the "U.S. standard algorithm for multiplication", and is NOT what is taught every day at FCPS. As per NCTM, "The standard algorithms are historically validated mathematically efficient procedures" [source] "We would hope that use of a partial sums algorithm for addition and partial product algorithm or proportional box algorithm for multiplication help to provide students with a precursor to using the more efficient standard procedure or algorithm" - Skip Fennell, NCTM President - as per 6/15/2009 email with NCTM

Grade 5, Unit 3, page 76

NMP 2008 Final Report

NMP 2008 Documents

Fact Sheet Preliminary Report Final Report

FCPS in their 'Get the Facts' document (Version 1) states they "we wanted a text that would satisfy ... National Mathematics Panel’s 2008 recommendations for ... computational fluency" [§5.0].

In the Elementary Math Textbook Selection Overview document, Nelson Palmer cites "The Final Report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel" as one of the reasons a new elementary textbook is needed.

"11) Computational proficiency with whole number operations is dependent on sufficient and appropriate practice to develop automatic recall of addition and related subtraction facts, and of multiplication and related division facts. It also requires fluency with the standard algorithms for addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division. Additionally it requires a solid understanding of core concepts, such as the commutative, distributive, and associative properties. Although the learning of concepts and algorithms reinforce one another, each is also dependent on different types of experiences, including practice." - NMP 2008 page xix

"Few curricula in the United States provide sufficient practice to ensure fast and efficient solving of basic fact combinations and execution of the standard algorithms." - NMP 2008 page 26

"First-grade math achievement was significantly higher in schools randomly assigned to Math Expressions or Saxon Math than in those schools assigned to Investigations in Number, Data, and Space or to Scott Foresman-Addison Wesley Mathematics."

On May 13, 2009, I personally verified that the quotation that you see above from the "Coventry Local School District, OH -- Curriculum Director" is indeed a quotation from that school's Curriculum Director. In my email communications with the Coventry Curriculum Director, she confirmed this, and added:

"it was a disaster"

"The discovery/exploration approach it uses did not work for our students and families. It was a disaster and put our students years behind in the demonstration of basic math skills and competencies. Each teacher, during that time, will fully admit that they had to develop their own program for teaching math and if the students were successful on our state assessments it was because of what each teacher did individually, not what the program offered."

My sister-in-law is a college math professor in my home town. She is very concerned with math education trends she is witnessing first hand. She is concerned that ever since the home town high school adopted a 'fuzzy math' curriculum, that not a single student going to her college from that high school has selected 'math' as a major.

Secure documents in June 2009

FCPS drastically changed their web site after my PIA. Most documents were removed from their web site.

"To disclose the information would be contrary to the public interest as the information includes testing and assessment related academic materials. Specifically, to disclose secured testing materials would significantly compromise the integrity of our instructional program."

The huge legal problem with the FCPS FOIA reply is that FCPS inappropriately denied access to these documents FIVE TIMES; (1) in the PIA reply, (2) by refusing to return my phone call, (3) in a letter from Cannon replying to my email, (4) in a email from Burgee replying to my email, (5) in my letter from Burgee, replying to my formal complaint letter. But by simple inspection, the "Mathematics Position Statements" (and likely other documents) clearly do not fit the denial criteria and should have been disclosed.

'Learning Communities' document

Grouping in Math Intervention Learning Communities Placement Testing Rules in Math Test Preparation What We Say About Mathematics

'Learning Communities' public from May 2005 until 2009

In the July 2 letter Jamie Cannon once again denies access to all secure documents, but this time improperly using a catchall "confidential" claim (not allowed under PIA law) and mentions 'interagency' materials, which is §10-618(b) of the PIA code, which states "A custodian may deny inspection of any part of an interagency or intra–agency letter or memorandum that would not be available by law to a private party in litigation with the unit." Now that is all you need to know about FCPS integrity. FCPS claims that the "Mathematics Position Statements" are not available -- even through the 'discovery' process during litigation -- for documents they themselves knowingly previously published. Also note that the original denial only cited 'Examination Records', which is §10-618(c). However, it is the opinion of the local Circuit Court, in City of Frederick v. Randall Family, LLC, 154 Md. App. 543, 841 A.2d 10 (2004), that a custodian later citing denial reasons not stated in the original PIA denial means that (in the words of the Maryland Attorney General) the original PIA denial was a legally deficient denial [See Maryland Public Information Act Manual (11th Ed.) (October 2008), Chapter IV]. And a third source is William Varga, Maryland Attorney General, on Oct 13, 2009 5:43pm. Also, Jamie's denial excuse of 'interagency materials' is a literal reading of the words in PIA law, but fails to grasp the true meaning of those words, which case law clearly says it only applies to pre-decisional materials, not post-decisional materials. And a publication of a document like a 'position statement' on a FCPS website (which requires department head approval) is de-facto 'post-decisional'. [as per section D.1 of PIA Chapter III]. Simply inexcusable mistakes for the FCPS lawyer, Jamie Cannon, to make.

FCPS Grade 4 Assessment Packet

DENIAL FIVE: On January 29, 2010, a formal complaint letter was filed with FCPS on these issues. A reply from the Superintendent, Dr. Linda Burgee, confirms that Jamie Cannon violated FCPS Regulation 200-42! And then goes on to claim their denial was 'proper'! And contrary to previous emails with the Linda Burgee, who indicated that Steve Lockard would be helpful on this issue, Steve Lockard totally failed to respond to my letter! Once again, so much for FCPS integrity.

Secure documents in June 2009

Remember, the administration officials responsible for telling me that disclosing 2+2=4 to the public would harm the public interests are the same administration officials responsible for making decisions about what your child will (or will not) learn.

"Please be advised that pursuant to 10-623 of the State Government Article, you have the right to file a complaint in Circuit Court seeking a review of this decision".

On January 29, 2010, a formal complaint letter was filed with FCPS on these issues. A reply from the Superintendent, Dr. Linda Burgee, confirms that Jamie Cannon violated FCPS Regulation 200-42!

PIA5: In a Maryland Public Information Act reply, FCPS admits that it can provide no Investigations sessions, no supplemental resources, nor any other documents that shows that teachers in 4th grade taught 'standard multiplication' during the 2008-2009 school year.

The unwillingness of top officials at FCPS to even discuss this issue is more telling than any actual response -- especially since only days earlier in a June 7 Frederick News Post article Bonnie Ward was quoted as stating "she and her colleagues will continue to respond to parents' concerns". Well, I am the parent of a child at FCPS and only days later (1) Bonnie Ward read my emails on this issue and never responded and (2) her colleague Nelson Palmer 'deleted without reading' [view deleted notification] my follow up email.

Curriculum Unit Guides

Dr. Martirano

Dr. Bonnie Borsa

But the results of a Maryland Public Information Act reply indicates Dr. Borsa has no documentation to back up her claim. FCPS can not point to a single FCPS teacher that said this

So what happens when a Board member violates a policy? Nothing according to Jamie Cannon "there are no penalties included in the Policy nor are there consequences listed in other Board policies" [§3.15].

VIDEO: Dr. Borsa attacks Donna Crook

To watch this incredible attack unfold, watch these YouTube Videos: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3. Another source of this video is FCPS itself in 10.26.09 BOE 701-801.

A complaint letter was filed with the President of the FCPS Board of Education (Jean Smith), on October 28, 2009, in response to Dr. Bonnie Borsa's ambush of Donna Crook. [FNP article]. PIA 16 Evidence: Receipts | Regulation 300-31 V1 | Regulation 300-31 V2 | Regulation 300-31 V3 | Transcripts A second complaint letter was filed with the President of the FCPS Board of Education (Jean Smith), on November 10, 2009 - after results from a Public Information Act request (evidence right) were obtained. The complaint letter deals with the numerous factual errors Dr. Borsa made in regards to the evidence that Dr. Borsa claimed she had, but did not. A complaint letter (referencing both letters above) was also filed with Nancy S. Grasmick of the Maryland State Department of Education on November 11, 2009. [FNP article]. On January 15, 2010 a letter was sent to the Maryland "State Board" of Education detailing concerns in this matter. On February 12, 2010 a follow-up letter was sent to the Maryland "State Board" of Education detailing additional concerns in this matter. It is more than interesting that in the State Board ruling on this issue, they cite "First Amendment" issues in declining to take action.

1. Code of Conduct: Be Responsible: Demonstrate fairness. Ensure that all sides have a fair opportunity to present their respective positions: Of course Dr. Borsa gave Donna an opportunity to speak, but without giving Donna any time to research and prepare. Dr. Borsa obviously prepared well in advance by having transcripts, receipts, etc. Dr. Borsa refused that same time to prepare to Donna Crook, so it was not a fair opportunity.
2. Code of Conduct: Be Responsible: Clearly distinguish opinions from facts. Ensure all statements of fact are accurate and verifiable: Dr. Bonnie Borsa claims that receipts prove that no alcohol was paid for on a FCPS card (that if it was paid for that it would have showed). But that is simply not the case after examining the receipts obtained via a PIA request. Dr. Borsa has a lot to answer for -- for claiming having the prior superintendent receipts, which in fact she clearly did not have the receipts in hand!
3. Board of Education Norms: Avoid surprises by articulating concerns in advance: Dr. Bonnie Borsa did not tell Donna in advance that she was going to 'call out' Donna in a PUBLIC meeting. The attack was a huge surprise to Donna, which we can all see unfold on the video, and nothing Dr. Bonnie Borsa says about their prior history ('we talked about issues in private') can change the fact that what unfolded on Oct 26 was a total surprise to Donna.
4. Board members and staff are expected to maintain the confidentiality of closed session discussions at all times. Dr. Borsa says she tried to address issues in private "behind closed doors". In a radio show, she admits this was in closed sessions. If anything from those closed sessions made it into the public meeting, Dr. Borsa violated the confidentiality of those closed sessions.
5. Board Members’ Requests for Information: When any Board Member requests information from staff, all Board Members must be copied on the request, and response. How did Borsa obtain receipts? How did Borsa obtain the policy from the 80's? How did Borsa obtain transcripts? Since Donna was surprised by Dr. Borsa's attack, did Donna receive copies of these? If not, Dr. Borsa once again violated Board rules and regulations.

1. Alcohol Policy: On the radio show Dr. Bonnie Borsa refers to, the context of the discussion was Board Policy 112 on alcohol which was adopted on 7/13/2005. Not a decades old policy as Dr. Borsa wants us to think. So was there was another decades old policy on alcohol? Very likely, but that does not take away from the fact that Donna was present in 2005 for the adoption of Policy 112 [source]. Listen to radio show hour 1 and hour 2
2. Receipts: Dr. Bonnie Borsa holds up a pile of 'receipts' and states that there was no alcohol paid for. However, that is not a true statement. Given the many 'amount/tip/total' receipts (one seen right), alcohol could easily have been paid for and would not show. Also, the receipts for the former superintendent are clearly missing, which Dr. Borsa admits on November 13, 2009 in a FNP article. [§3.17]
3. Private Restrooms: Dr. Borsa states: "of course there will be a number of public restrooms within the building. And there is one small unisex toilet on the 5th floor that's going to be used by school board members, by legal services, by Dr. Burgee and her staff." [Listen to quotation] Notice that Dr. Borsa did not say that the public can use that 5th level restroom. Dr. Borsa then attacks Donna for comments made on a radio show, stating: "I have another transcript on August 31st on a radio talk show again. You were discussing the restroom facilities at the central office and you stated, and this is a quote: I'm sure there are several personal poopers I'm sure there are private poopers too. And that is a quote from you Mrs. Crook." [Listen to quotation] OK, so language aside, what did Donna REALLY say on the radio show: "Well, I'm sure there's several personal poopers. I'm sure there's a couple private poopers too." [Listen to quotation] [Listen to Entire Radio Show] So Dr. Borsa misquoted Donna Crook! Now if you are going to claim you are reading from a transcript, you had better make 100% sure the transcript is accurate! And then after misquoting Donna, Dr. Borsa then hammers Donna over the word 'private' and 'personal' (for a restroom that may not even be open to the public) View blueprint for new building. On February 3, 2010, I personally attended the Facilities and Finance Meeting, where it was discussed that a "swipe card" is needed to access everything in the new office building. The only area accessible to the public is the lobby. Access to bathrooms and the rest of the building will require a swipe card.
4. All Board Members present? Borsa says "All Board Members are here" Listen to quotation. And yet, Angie Fish is clearly not at the meeting (just look at the videos above). So Borsa makes a blatant error in a factual statement. Funny, do you see a 'pattern' developing in Dr. Borsa's own statements?

"Board members expressed concern about the amount of money spent annually on consumable workbooks for the Investigations Math program. Board member Bonnie Borsa brought up the possibility of having parents pay for the workbooks."

"anything directly related to a school's curriculum must be available to all without charge"

"Schools may request, but not require, that students provide specific school supplies and may charge fees for workbooks, newspapers, physical education uniforms, industrial arts, home economics, and other materials that will become the student’s personal property when the course or project is completed".

"Have the parents buy the workbook ..."

Investigations 4th grade Unit 5 Session 2.4

"No one from the staff was replaced! Nor did we have a co-principal" [view email]

VIDEO: Aug 27, 2007

VIDEO: Stacey McGiffin June 24, 2009

"there are no penalties included in the Policy nor are there consequences listed in other Board policies." [view email]

• Oct 26: "Well, I have all the receipts from that trip right here, and there is absolutely none that shows that a procurement card was used to pay for alcohol" - Dr. Bonnie Borsa, Vice President Board of Education in the Oct 26, 2009 meeting
• Nov 2: "There are no records that indicate Jack Dale used his FCPS procurement card to pay for alcohol for Board members at the April, 2003 NSBA conference" - Dr. Linda Burgee (Superintendent), as per a Nov 2 email from Linda Burgee to a County Commissioner [source: Nov 12 email with the County Commissioner]
• Nov 4: "The county attorney said the procurement card shows no purchase of alcohol" - FNP article of Nov 4, 2009 - but I have good reason to suspect that 'county attorney' is incorrect and should instead be 'superintendent'

PIA15: In a June 26, 2009 Maryland Public Information Act, I asked FCPS to disclose any and all Investigations sessions with the scope of teaching U.S. algorithms [Maryland Public Information Act Request & Reply].

The only exceptions to this rule are (a) §10-620(a)(2) copies of a court judgment to non-litigants and (b) §10-618(c)(2), which involves a promotional examination that you personally took where you personally (and not others) are allowed to review the exam and results, but not copy.

Grade 5, Unit 3, page 76

Now, these new Investigations methods would be OK if children were quickly graduated to the standard and efficient algorithms, but they are not! Investigations expects children to continue to use mundane 'learning algorithms' the rest of their life. Investigations comes right out and says "students are not expected to switch" to standard algorithms as adults. [source: Investigations, Grade 5, Unit 3, page 76].

Investigations Method	'Standard' Method

VIDEO: Math Education: An Inconvenient Truth

In fact, a child very fluent in the standard multiplication method does not need to write down the 'carry' numbers, but rather keeps them 'in their head' as they are immediately used in the next step. That means that a child only needs to write down 11 digits to multiply 148 by 42, instead of the 62 digits needed by Investigations.

Please note that this 'keeping carry numbers in your head' is only appropriate after multiplication has been properly learned (not appropriate while still learning).

This needs more research as according to this document the use of calculators in Investigations appears much more limited. This may be a first / second edition issue. If so, Investigations now knows they were wrong in the first edition.

This actually explains a lot. Say I purchase a candy bar and, for example, it costs $0.76 total. I hand the clerk a one dollar bill and one penny. Many clerks have a puzzled look on their face. Some even try to hand the penny back to me. If kids today can't understand what is happening instantly, then I have to seriously question calculator use in the classroom. There is no substitute for using your head (your ultimate tool -- your mind) and 'thinking'.

If you disagree with me, I offer you a challenge. Multiply a nine digit number by a nine digit number using the Investigations method. It is a total failure, when compared to the 'standard' multiplication strategy.

For example, to evaluate a computer 'sorting' algorithm, I might test how well (or not) a sorting algorithm works. But I am concerned about performance at the edge conditions. Like, what if I sort a list and that list is already sorted? How does the sorting algorithm perform? Being able to identify and analyze edge conditions is important in computer science.

123456789 × 2 = 100000000 × 2 = 200,000,000 20000000 × 2 = 40,000,000 3000000 × 2 = 6,000,000 400000 × 2 = 800,000 50000 × 2 = 100,000 6000 × 2 = 12,000 700 × 2 = 1,400 80 × 2 = 160 9 × 2 = 18 200,000,000 + 40,000,000 + 6,000,000 + 800,000 + 100,000 + 12,000 + 1,400 + 160 + 18 = 246,913,578

Worse yet, after a child makes the horrible guess "20" and can see that "420" was way too small -- there is still "855" left -- the child can not 'see' that "420" goes into "855" very nicely twice (2*20, or 40 times)?

• Does 21 go into "1" (does 21 go into 1000 1000's of times)? No.
• Does 21 go into "12" (does 21 go into 1200 100's of times)? No.
• Does 21 go into 127 (does 21 go into 1270 10's of times)? Yes. But how many times?

Why 6 times: How many times does 21 go into 127? Well, rather than taking a wild guess like Investigations, discard the 'ones' digit of both numbers (divide by 10 and discard fraction). 21 becomes 2 and 127 becomes 12. 2 goes into 12 six times. That is a first educated guess. 6 × 21 is 126, so that indeed is our first (educated, and very good) guess.

• standard addition in grade 4, unit 5, 2.4, page 85 - two grade levels too late
• standard subtraction in grade 5, unit 3, 2.4, page 75 - three grade levels too late
• standard multiplication in grade 5, unit 7, 2.3, page 58 - one grade level too late
• standard division - total failure - not taught

Investigations Grade 4 documentation

SOURCE: The source of this information was from me paging through every page of the Investigations K-5 teacher guides. You can independently verify this information by looking at Investigations own Scope and Sequence document and searching for "U.S. algorithm" (what Investigations calls 'standard' algorithms).

Investigations sessions spent on standard U.S. algorithms
Grade	Sessions	Addition	Subtraction	Multiplication	Division
K	153	-	-	-	-
1	159	-	-	-	-
2	165	-	-	-	-
3	164	-	-	-	-
4	160	1	-	-	-
5	158	-	1	1	-
total	959	1	1	1	0

[ Source: K | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Scope and Sequence ]

When talking about the standard U.S. Algorithm for subtraction, Investigations states "However, students are not expected to switch to using this algorithm. Continuing to use the methods they have developed will serve them well for their computation needs now and as adults" - Investigations, Grade 5, Unit 3, page 76.

Grade 5, unit 7, session 2.3, page 60

Grade 5, unit 7, session 2.4, page 64

• Multiply 2-digit numbers efficiently
• Solve division problems efficiently

But, if you disagree with that statement, multiply a nine digit number by a nine digit number using the Investigations method. Then do it the 'standard' way. The 'standard' method works, and is very efficient.

And yes, the 'standard' multiplication strategy does show intermediate steps. If a mistake is made, a teacher knows exactly where the error was made (what step).

Transparent defined: "the properties of the operations and the place value of the numbers are not hidden by shortcut notation" [reference]

Sometimes (rarely) a child gets the 'right answer' by accident, by making multiple mistakes in the intermediate steps. That is why a teacher is so interested in how an answer is obtained.

We expect our children to eventually just 'know' the answer to any single-digit by single-digit multiplication. In 'FCPS' speak, this is called instant 'recall of math facts'. We do not expect children to 'just know' the answer to any double-digit by single-digit multiplication, which means they need to 'calculate' the answer. So, these 'calculation' steps are simply (and inappropriately) not shown by Investigations in the strategy.

If Investigations is not available in your elementary school library (like it was not in mine), this is likely a communication problem between the county and the school. Don't blame the school (the county is likely to blame). Kindly point out school policy and you will be allowed to review the books.

Algebraically: Designating an expression, equation, or function in which only numbers, letters, and arithmetic operations are contained or used. reference

An example of an 'algebra' problem my six-year old can solve. I say to her 'I have a coin in my hand. If I double it and add five cents, I now have a 25 cents. What coin do I have in my hand?' My daughter does not know that this is solving for 'x' in the algebra problem '2x + 5 = 25', but she can already figure out the answer.

Want to make a splash on the first day of 'algebra' class? Use a dollar coin and ask a similar 'what coin is in my hand' verbal 'algebra' question. Don't make a big deal about the question, but when the first student answers the question correctly, give the coin to the student and let them know they just solved an algebra problem correctly. You will likely have the full undivided attention of the entire class for the next minute. Make the most of it.

Marita Loose (director of communication services for FCPS) wrote in a June 11, 2009 unsolicited email to me "That document was developed initially by Dr. Bonnie Ward in collaboration with Nelson Palmer, FCPS elementary math curriculum specialist, and Dr. Bonnie Hain, director of curriculum."

"Why is FCPS purchasing new math textbooks? The math textbook series previously in use was 8 years old and did not fully align with the current essential curriculum and voluntary state curriculum. Also, we wanted a text that would satisfy the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) Curriculum Focal Points and National Mathematics Panel’s 2008 recommendations for improving math instruction in U.S. classrooms, including providing students an early start and emphasizing conceptual understanding, computational fluency and problem-solving skills."

PIA4: Under the Maryland Public Information Act (Freedom of Information Act), FCPS has no evidence explaining the appearance and then removal of Dr. Martirano's quotations. [view Public Information Act] St. Mary's Dr. Martirano released a statement about the incident, saying he never provided a quotation to FCPS for publication.

[ Source: Grade 3 | Grade 4 | Grade 5 ]

Just think about the 'doubling' comment for a minute. Proficiency has doubled? A proficiency around 90% is very good, which means for that statement to be true, proficiency would have to originally have been under 45%. That means over half the children were failing. Does that sound typical of your school? A turnaround, regardless of math curriculum, was expected by the State Board of Education.

And even if there were a doubling of proficiency, would you really tout that given the horrible total proficiency (below Annual Measurable Objectives) of 5th grade (small graph right; full graph below), which is the culmination of many years of education at Lincoln?

PIA1: The results of a Maryland Public Information Act are in. Dr. Bonnie Borsa can not back up her claim and can only point to AYP numbers, which shows an increase of 67%, not 100%. [Maryland Public Information Act]

[source of data]

"One of the schools included in the field test was Lincoln Elementary School, which had used the text since 2003 as part of a collaborative agreement for school improvement between FCPS and the Maryland State Department of Education"

"After carefully reviewing all field test information from the six schools and achievement results from schools already using the text..."

Lincoln Elementary (web site | profile) is a 100% Title I school with 19% "Limited English Proficiency", and 15.2% special education. Lincoln Elementary was in deep trouble. At one point, it was the only school in Frederick County (then named 'South Frederick Elementary' [source]) to be on the state-wide Schools in Need of Improvement list [source].

• Advanced (good) = Students at this level show they can regularly solve complex problems in mathematics and demonstrate superior ability to reason mathematically
• Proficient (ok) = Students at this level show they have an understanding of fundamental grade level skills and concepts and can generally solve entry-level problems in mathematics
• Basic (poor) = Students at this level show they have only partially mastered the skills and concepts that Maryland expects students to know and be able to do at this grade level

[source of data]


[source of data]

[source of data]

I may be 'off' by one year, depending upon how FCPS classifies a year, but 2006 was still very bad, when compared to similarly bad 2003, the year Investigations was started.

[source of data]

[source of data] APC=Advanced Professional Certificate; SPC=Standard Professional Certificate
RTC=Resident Teacher Certificate, COND=Conditional Certificate. [Maryland Certification Table]

• "the Board approved the proposed alternative governance plan for Lincoln Elementary School in Frederick County"
• "Ms. Knott reported that all or most of the staff will be replaced at Lincoln Elementary School and that a Co-Principal will be designated with equal decision-making capacity and authority"
• "...provision of a Co-Principal who has a high success rate with special education students"

[source of data]

source of data

I have just been notified that St. Mary's County as of the 2008-2009 school year is no longer using Investigations as a primary resource in the 5th grade and parts of 4th grade. So far, school officials are NOT responding to my emails, and refusing to return phone calls. Now CONFIRMED [source].

[source of data]

• Grade 4 '2003' data in this table looks to actually be '2004' data
• The 'proficient' data shown in this table is actually the sum of the raw 'proficient' and 'advanced' numbers
• The "88%" is incorrect. It is (401+617)/1164, or 87%. [source]
• The "33%" is incorrect. It is 399/1238, or 32% [source]
• FCPS claims there are 20,000 students in St. Mary's County, but St. Mary's own 2007-2008 fact sheet says 16,922 total, with only 7,920 in Elementary. The table presented (grade 3/4/5) only covers 3,545 students [source]. For 2008-2009, the total enrollment was DOWN to 16,581 [Source is 6/29/2009 email with SMCPS]
• As per SMCPS "The first year of full implementation in ALL K-5 classrooms in SMCPS was 2004-2005", (or 2005 in these charts), so the prior (non-Investigations) year is 2004, not 2003 [Source is 6/18/2009 email with SMCPS].

[source of data]

[source of data]

[source of data]

So, you have a son in 5th grade and a daughter in 4th grade. Would you compare how well your son does this year in 5th grade to how well your daughter does next year in 5th grade next year? That is what FCPS is doing. Or instead would you look for improvement in your son from year to year, and your daughter from year to year?

[source of data]

[source of data]

St. Mary's 'same class' Proficiency
Class of...	Total Proficient%
	5th grade	6th grade	Comment
2010	57.1%	53.1%	decrease in proficiency
2011	67.0%	63.8%	decrease in proficiency
2012	74.7%	73.0%	decrease in proficiency

[ 5th grade data | 6th grade data ]

[source of data]

"Investigations is the primary text resource for Frederick County, St. Mary’s County, and Baltimore County. Other counties that use Investigations or Everyday Math are Baltimore City, Caroline, Carroll, Charles, Harford, Howard, Kent, Montgomery, Queen Anne’s and Talbot.

Picture from the Frederick News Post -- June 7, 2009

• Add and subtract 4-digit numbers using the standard U.S. algorithm
• Multiply a 3-digit by a 1-digit number using the standard U.S. algorithm

"My first impressions as I prepared to teach 3rd grade was that -- maybe I picked the wrong profession because my students could calculate and manipulate expressions quicker than I could at 22 years old and I was shocked" Listen

This overall score also puts Lincoln Elementary Grade 3 Math achievement in the bottom 20% of all Grade 3 students in entire state of Maryland.

"We do use Investigations ... so please don't make this about that. It is more about the people who stand in front of the classroom whether using a basal approach, Singapore math, or any other resource." [view email]

"At the end of the discussion, Bonnie Borsa stated her concern about misinformation being disseminated about the FCPS math curriculum and the TERC Investigations series. She indicated her intent to write a commentary for the Frederick News Post addressing these topics."

Dr. Bonnie Borsa Clarifying FCPS math curriculum Recent communications to The Frederick News-Post have raised several issues regarding the mathematics curriculum of Frederick County Public Schools. Let me clarify several points: The FCPS mathematics essential curriculum has not changed. The goals and objectives of student learning and mastery of material remain the same. Students are taught the essential curriculum through many resources, including textbooks. In April, the board of education approved a new textbook for grades K-5: "Investigations in Number, Data, and Space," second edition, published by Pearson Scott Foresman. Students will still learn by direct instruction from the teacher, and the text will be used to support the concepts the teacher has introduced. The extensive research base for this text series supports its use as a resource for math instruction. No single textbook can account for all the instructional needs of students. This text is only one component of the mathematics essential curriculum. Also, one component of the essential curriculum is the expectation of student recall of math facts. A committee of teachers, parents and administrators spent over a year reviewing available textbooks, and two were field tested in six elementary schools in 2007-2008. Survey and focus group information, field observations, and recommendations from teachers and principals were used to select the text. The text provides a focused, coherent progression of mathematics learning for students. Like every major subject area taught at FCPS, the essential curriculum for mathematics is evaluated and updated every summer in a three-week curriculum workshop. Workshops align the FCPS curriculum with the Voluntary State Curriculum, which is the curriculum tested on the Maryland School Assessments. We have every confidence that our mathematics curriculum is structured to create success for our students. BONNIE BORSA vice president Board of Education of Frederick County

I am writing in regard to the Sept. 15 editorial about Frederick County Public Schools’ use of the Investigations math text. To clarify, the new text -- which teachers are using in conjunction with a variety of other instructional materials -- was selected after careful evaluation. It supports our program of study, the state’s voluntary curriculum and national experts’ recommendations for improving math instruction in U.S. classrooms. FCPS’ elementary math curriculum has not changed. Our students in kindergarten through fifth grade continue to study: whole numbers and computation with whole numbers fractions, decimals, and computation with fractions and decimals recall of math facts using the Basic Math Facts program and text standard algorithms (+, x, -, /) used for computation of whole numbers geometry and measurement skills We encourage parents and the public who have questions about the textbook and our curriculum to visit www.fcps.org/mathfacts. The textbook is available for review in elementary school media centers. Of course, principals and the kindergarten, second- and fourth-grade teachers who are using the textbook this year can also respond to inquiries. Dr. BONNIE WARD associate superintendent Curriculum, Instruction and Evaluation Frederick County Public Schools

It is very interesting to note that FCPS no longer claims that students "study" standard algorithms. In the latest Get the Facts document [§5.0] FCPS has changed the wording from "study" to "work with". PIA5: Standard Multiplication was NOT taught: Under the Maryland Public Information Act (Freedom of Information Act), FCPS can provide no Investigations sessions, no supplemental resources, nor any other documents that shows that teachers in 4th grade taught 'standard multiplication' during the 2008-2009 school year. [view PIA letter & FCPS reply]

Dr. Borsa: "The May 21 News-Post article on the TERC (Investigations) math program only gave the beginning of the story. Elementary students are taught to have fast recall of math facts, and are taught the standard, basic algorithms for solving math problems. However, when math topics are introduced, students are given several different ways to solve problems so that they have a better understanding of how numbers work. Ultimately, students choose the approach that is most efficient for them -- and in many cases, that will be the use of the standard algorithm."

Notice Dr. Borsa said 'ultimately'. So, exactly when is 'ultimately' to her? Sometime during K-5, or after fifth grade?

Dr. Borsa: "Why learn more than one way to solve a problem? Math teachers were finding that some upper level math students knew math only by rote and did not have a broader understanding of why they performed certain mathematical operations. (A very simple example: If you subtract 19 from 32, why can the "2" in the ones column become a 12?)"

PIA12: Claims with no documentation: Under the Maryland Public Information Act (Freedom of Information Act), FCPS has no evidence that shows math students knew math only by rote. [view Public Information Act]

Dr. Borsa: "The TERC Investigations program will give that broader understanding and several ways to think about math problems. But the FCPS essential math curriculum expects that students ultimately use the problem solving technique that is the easiest and most efficient for them."

Dr. Borsa: "If you walk into a store and find a $38 item on sale for 70 percent off, how much will you pay? I estimate. I round up the number to $40 and figure I will pay 30 percent. I compute that 30 percent of $40 is $12. How do you figure out this problem?"

• $9 + $2.4 = $11.40 (30% × $30 plus 30% × $8)

• $12 - 0.60 = $11.40 (30% × $40 minus 30% × $2)

UPDATE2: FCPS is implementing 'advanced' math classes with a new non-TERC textbook. Ask for your child to be placed into this new math class! According to a FNP article: Lockard said there are no intentions of having cut-and-dried criteria for admission to the accelerated class. He said he doesn't want to shut the door on any child who could succeed in the class. "If a parent really wants their child in the class and tells me they will do whatever it takes to help their child succeed, I'm going to say, 'Come on in,' and we'll give that child a try," he said.

UPDATE1: I have heard back from parents of children who have been denied the use of 'standard' algorithms in class. For those parents who have followed up, simply pointing out FCPS policy (that standard algorithms are allowed) is enough to allow a child to use 'standard' algorithms in class. But why that is needed even in the first place is a puzzle if it is indeed FCPS policy to allow 'standard' strategies in class. This points to a huge communication problem within FCPS. I even have an email from one concerned parent stating "the teacher has embarrassed my daughter in 4th grade regarding solving math problems using the traditional algorithm". Given county policy on this matter, that should never have happened. You never embarrass a child, and certainly never for something you (as teacher) are required and responsible to teach them in the first place. To me, there is clearly a lack of communication between policy makers at the county level and teachers at the school level. Another parent wrote to me "My son has lost a year's worth of progress due to the lack of content and inefficient methodologies used by Investigations. I have spoken with the principal, other staff at the school, and Nelson Palmer about my concerns. My son is now attending an after school Math Club with ~10 other mathematically talented 2nd graders once a week. While I appreciate the effort from the school staff, this type of band-aid approach fails to address the woefully inadequate content and pace of the Investigations Math program these mathematically talented students endure in class on a daily basis." Read the rest of this section only if your child is still not allowed to use standard strategies in math class.

Dr. Ward: "Our students in kindergarten through fifth grade continue to study ... standard algorithms (+, x, -, /) used for computation of whole numbers""

A teacher is not there to support Investigations; instead, Investigations is there only as a resource (as per Bonnie Borsa) to support the teacher.

"A serious mistake too many teachers make is that they end up teaching the models rather than teaching the mathematics connected to the models."

source of data

The lattice multiplication method initially looks very strange. But look at it and take the time to understand how it works. It displays every digit of every multiplication and every digit of every addition. It is very hard to argue against this method because it 'shows all steps' in more detail than most other strategies (even the 'standard' multiplication strategy).

For example, one strategy for division is repeated subtraction of the divisor. This strategy is great for demonstration and understanding purposes, but horrible for everyday use. I think the same thing can be said about Investigations strategies. Great for demonstration, but horrible for everyday use.

I remember from 'college calculus' working with strategies (which were inefficient) for 'the derivative' which were clearly taught to us for 'learning and understanding'. But within days, much more efficient 'derivative' strategies were introduced and used in order to work with derivatives on a day-by-day basis.

The concept of introducing a 'learning strategy' and moving on to an 'efficient strategy' is a core concept in mathematics, but yet something the authors of Investigations fail to utilize.

After all, the true test to see if a subject is truly understood is an ability to explain (teach) it to others. It also helps to verbalize to others that which was taught to you. Maybe there is an opportunity here. Maybe once a year (or more), all kids from one grade level are paired with kids from a grade level below - where they must teach something to the lower grade. Even if that 'something' is not actually taught, the experience of trying to convey something you know to someone else is well worth it.

Do I now force my daughter to continue to use blocks to solve problems like this, after she understood what I taught? Of course not. So why should I accept Investigations forcing children to perform math using a strategy that was designed for understanding the math, not for using the math day-to-day.

There is a lesson to be learned here. When learning is fun, children ask to do more. But when I look at Investigations, I don't see fun. Rather I see tedious, non-standard multiplication that is time consuming (notice all of the zeros they need to write). That is not fun.

Now a test for all of the grown-ups reading this. Go get your child's building blocks and prove to yourself that 'n squared' is just the 'sum of the first n odd numbers'. Actually, if you look at the grid to the right, you can probably 'see' the pattern immediately and understand why this works.
[show hint to solution]

This observation was from Dr. R. James Milgram, Professor of Math at Stanford University at the 'Leading Minds' K-12 Math Education Forum' in Baltimore on April 24, 2008.

Or, consider just using a sheet of paper to represent 'magnitude'. '1' sheet, next to '10' sheets, next to '100' sheets, next to '1000' sheets (2 reams of copy paper), next to '10000' (20 reams of copy paper about 3.3 feet high). The next step to '100,000' sheets is 200 reams about 33 feet high. The 'exponential' growth of place value in the base ten numbering system (powers of ten) now all of sudden becomes very real to students.

Do you write a letter to the local Board of Education? No. You could, but your concerns will likely not be properly heard, or acted on. Often times, you will just be outright ignored.

Do your write a letter to the Maryland State Department of Education? Absolutely not. If you get any reply back at all, they will tell you 'we have no jurisdiction'. But how can that be? They are 'over' all schools in the state, aren't they?

So work within the rules the school system itself created -- the appeal process!

1. Teacher
2. Principal
3. Department Supervisor
4. Associate Superintendent / Executive Director
5. Superintendent - FCPS Cabinet Level Organization Chart
6. Board of Education - FCPS Policy 105 "Appeal and Hearing Procedures"
7. Maryland State Board - COMAR 13A.01.05 "Appeals to the State Board of Education"

§4-205(c)(3): "A decision of a county superintendent may be appealed to the county board if taken in writing within 30 days after the decision of the county superintendent. The decision may be further appealed to the State Board if taken in writing within 30 days after the decision of the county board."

Superintendent's Duty: And keep in mind that under §4-205 "Powers and duties of county superintendent", a Superintendent is required under §4-205(c) "Interpretation of law; controversies and disputes" to settle disputes and rule on an issue -- a Superintendent is not allowed to ignored concerns. And that is the power of §4-205 -- a Superintendent must rule and make a decision.

COMAR 13A.01.05.05: "Decisions of a local board involving a local policy or a controversy and dispute regarding the rules and regulations of the local board shall be considered prima facie correct, and the State Board may not substitute its judgment for that of the local board unless the decision is arbitrary, unreasonable, or illegal".

And in the eyes of the State Board, 'unreasonable' is "A reasoning mind could not have reasonably reached the conclusion the local board or local superintendent reached". So, it will be very, very hard to reverse a decision of the local school system, but if you feel you have a case, the State Board must hear your appeal.

It is critical to understand that there are two rights afforded to you regarding public documents under PIA law. The first is a right of inspection of a public record. The second is the right to copy a public record. Your PIA request should first ask to inspect a record, and then if possible, to copy the record. After all, you don't want to have to pay copy costs for a 1000-page document, if all you are interested in is one page!

If you are allowed to inspect a record, under PIA law §10-620, you must be allowed to make a copy of the record, if you want a copy made, with two minor exceptions that virtually never apply [§3.23].

• PIA1: 2009/06/02: Borsa - Lincoln doubled & St. Mary's County / Textbook Review

  The only evidence FCPS presents for Lincoln doubling and Investigations success in St. Mary's County is AYP numbers from mdreportcard.org. But the AYP numbers show that Lincoln did not double [5.1], and St. Mary's own superintendent, Dr. Martirano, credits lots of other factors for MSA results in this statement. Textbook review documents obtained were Pilot Questions, Pilot Results, Survey Comments, Results by Position, Results by School, Results by Years, and Textook Review. The Elementary Math Textbook Selection Overview document was present in the file reviewed, but was obtained by another source. FCPS also claims that their testing of Investigations was a 'field test' and not a 'pilot'. But these FCPS internal documents prove that internally, FCPS considered it a pilot. Later, FCPS gets rid of their 'pilot' policy/regulation.

• PIA2: 2009/06/04: Borsa - students knew math only by rote
  

  The only evidence FCPS presents is their 'Get the Facts' document [§5.0], but that document does not even mention 'rote', proving FCPS has no evidence to support their claims. Also, the reply to this PIA is totally contradicted by the June 20, 2009 PIA12 reply.

• PIA3: 2009/06/05: Access to elementary 'secure' documents

  FCPS made a huge legal mistake. See FCPS Integrity [§3.1] for full details. FCPS inappropriately denied access to some public documents.

• PIA4: 2009/06/06: Appearance/Removal of SMCPS Dr. Martirano quotations

  FCPS has no documentation that explains how quotations attributed to Dr. Martirano first appeared, and then were removed, from the 'Get the Facts' document. [§3.5]

• PIA5: 2009/06/06: Standard U.S. multiplication in 4th grade 2008-2009

  FCPS admits they did not direct 4th grade teachers in 2008-2009 to teach standard multiplication, totally contradicting prior claims made by FCPS in numerous newspaper articles. [§3.2]

• A BOGUS FCPS PIA REPLY THAT DOES NOT MATCH ANY PIA REQUEST I MADE

  In a PIA reply dated June 23, 2009, FCPS replies to a PIA request that I never made! Notice the three PIA request below for subtraction, division, and addition. It appears FCPS attempted to ISSUE a PIA reply for a PIA multiplication request that I never made. And the reply is clearly bogus because it talks about 'multiplication' and then 'subtraction' -- talk about a huge recordkeeping snafu. Notice that the reply is not even signed by Jamie Cannon, but by her paralegal, Monique Wilson, who signs Jamie's name followed by her initials, MSW.

• PIA6: 2009/06/12: Standard U.S. subtraction in 4th grade 2008-2009

  FCPS is unable to support that standard subtraction was taught in 4th grade 2008-2009 and points to (A) unit guide changes being made for the next year, 2009-2010, and to (B) a 'Get the Facts' document that did not exist until the end of the school year (May 18, 2009) which teachers were never directed to read. Compare to PIA15.

• PIA7: 2009/06/12: Standard U.S. division in 4th grade 2008-2009

  FCPS is unable to support that standard division was taught in 4th grade 2008-2009 and points to (A) unit guide changes being made for the next year, 2009-2010, and to (B) a 'Get the Facts' document that did not exist until the end of the school year (May 18, 2009) which teachers were never directed to read. Compare to PIA15.

• PIA8: 2009/06/12: Standard U.S. addition in 4th grade 2008-2009

  FCPS is unable to support that standard addition was taught in 4th grade 2008-2009 [§3.11] and points to (A) unit guide changes being made for the next year, 2009-2010, and to (B) a 'Get the Facts' document that did not exist until the end of the school year (May 18, 2009) which teachers were never directed to read. FCPS fails to even point out the single 4th grade Investigations session (2.4 in unit 5) on standard U.S. addition, totally eroding FCPS credibility. Compare to PIA15.

• PIA9: 2009/06/17: Parents were informed of Investigations usage

  FCPS claimed that parents were notified that TERC Investigations was being tested in the school system. Once again, this FCPS PIA reply just provides excuses and does not provide the letter from 'school to parents' that should have been sent out -- in order to justify their claim that parents were notified. Parent's from one of the schools said FCPS officials lied to them.

• PIA10: 2009/06/20: Cause of MSA test score increases at Lincoln

  FCPS wants to charge $600 for this information.

• PIA11: 2009/06/20: Borsa - is Lincoln 'doubled math achievement' a fact

  Dr. Bonnie Borsa can not back up her claim about Investigations "We've had it in Lincoln Elementary School for four years and they have doubled their achievement in math." FCPS points to www.mdreportcard.org, which only shows that AYP for math increased at Lincoln by 67% of the last four years (not 100%) [5.1].

• PIA12: 2009/06/20: Borsa - did FCPS teachers make 'rote' claim

  Dr. Bonnie Borsa has no documentation to support her claim that "Math teachers were finding that some upper level math students knew math only by rote and did not have a broader understanding of why they performed certain mathematical operations." FCPS can not point to a single FCPS teacher that said that [§3.9.a]. Note how this PIA reply totally contradicts the June 4, 2009 PIA2 reply.

• PIA13: 2009/06/26: How did FCPS teach subtraction with regrouping 2007-2008

  This request was meant to figure out how FCPS taught children pre-TERC about how 'standard subtraction' works -- and the FCPS reply is just full of excuses.

• PIA14: 2009/06/26: All version of 'Get the Facts' as DOC/PDF

  FCPS REPLY IS PENDING

• PIA15: 2009/06/26: Investigations sessions with scope of teaching U.S. algorithms

  Carefully read this FCPS reply -- where FCPS states in a legal PIA reply that there are NO TERC INVESTIGATIONS sessions that teach standard subtraction or standard division! [§3.20]

• PIA16: 2009/10/31: Dr. Bonnie Borsa ATTACK on Crook (Policy/Transcripts/Receipts)

  This PIA was issued in response to the Dr. Borsa attack on Donna Crook [§3.9.b] The documents obtained were: Receipts, Regulation 300-31 V1, Regulation 300-31 V2, Regulation 300-31 V3, and Transcripts.

• PIA17: 2010/02/08: Mathematics Positions Statements

  FCPS REPLY IS PENDING

• PIA18: 2010/02/08: Elementary Math Secure Documents Two

  After sending a complaint letter to Linda Burgee produced no results, I reissued the Elementary Math Secure documents PIA, and this time FCPS allowed most documents to be 'inspected' (totally contradicting PIA3) but not copied, a violation of PIA law §10-620.

• PIA19: 2010/02/24: Supplemental Lessons K-5

  This PIA is about the Supplemental Lessons FCPS created, and how much new material (if any) FCPS has regarding 'standard algorithms'. This request will also test FCPS and PIA law in regards to §10-620 "Copies". [§3.23]

• 2011/07/27: The new math
• 2011/07/24: New math curriculum on tap
• 2011/06/20: Venturing beyond TERC math
• 2011/02/20: What's after TERC?
  
  
• 2010/12/11: Reports of demise of TERC math program not exaggerated
• 2010/12/10: New Frederick County Board of Education members take meeting by storm
• 2010/10/06: Top eight school board candidates field questions [video]
• 2010/07/20: Resident files complaint against school system over documents
• 2010/07/12: Ivory tower
• 2010/05/24: 'It's good to be the king'
• 2010/02/07: It's time for school board to fess up on TERC Investigations
• 2010/02/02: Unfair criticism
• 2010/01/31: Costly TERC workbook
• 2010/01/22: Accelerated elementary math program considered
• 2010/01/21: School board gets detailed information on budget
  
  
• 2009/12/04: The enigma of TERC
• 2009/11/27: Fast-track math
• 2009/11/23: Clarifying math presentation
• 2009/11/21: Elementary math update spurs more debate
• 2009/11/19: Applause for Fish's stand
• 2009/11/13: Resident files complaint about local school board
• 2009/11/04: What really matters
• 2009/11/04: Childish school board insensitive, blind to issues
• 2009/11/03: Adding up the damage
• 2009/11/01: Incorrect Information?
• 2009/10/29: Borsa’s behavior spurs complaint
• 2009/10/27: School board meeting ends in airing of internal discord
• 2009/10/27: Math algorithms given short shrift
• 2009/10/17: Some things don't add up
• 2009/10/12: Watchdog: Schools and public info, part 2
• 2009/09/28: Watchdog: A discouraging lack of openness
• 2009/08/12: Toothless tiger
• 2009/08/06: School board found in violation of Open Meetings Act
• 2009/07/03: Muddy rhetoric
• 2009/06/30: Too chancy
• 2009/06/25: TERC skeptics, give it a chance
• 2009/06/16: School Notes - Volunteer & More on Investigations
• 2009/06/14: Cubes are useful tools
• 2009/06/10: Cubes too square for fourth-graders
• 2009/06/08: More of same board broadcast
• 2009/06/08: Questioning the math
• 2009/06/07: Educators say Investigations teaches children to embrace, master math
• 2009/05/31: BoE-FCPS disconnect
• 2009/05/27: Only half the story
• 2009/05/27: Multiplication tables essential
• 2009/05/24: TERC means extra work
• 2009/05/21: More math problems
• 2009/05/21: Local parent creates website to oppose TERC math program
• 2009/05/15: Firsthand knowledge of TERC shortcomings
• 2009/05/03: Principal, parent and 'TERC' math fan
• 2009/04/27: Do school critics have firsthand knowledge?
• 2009/04/11: Talking TERC-key
• 2009/03/12: BoE's off-camera act
• 2009/03/12: Parents tell BoE that TERC math is failing students
• 2009/03/05: Pro-TERC
• 2009/02/26: TERC should not be tolerated
• 2009/02/15: TERC teacher says math program has real value
• 2009/02/10: Who supports TERC math?
• 2009/02/07: TERC supports math curriculum, FCPS says
• 2009/02/06: Parents look to improve math education on their own
  
  
• 2008/12/19: TERC is prep for college dropouts
• 2008/12/13: TERC just iceberg tip
• 2008/12/08: Not every parent is a TERC critic
• 2008/12/06: Parents misled about TERC math
• 2008/12/02: Parents petition BoE for change in math program
• 2008/09/19: TERC selected after careful evaluation
• 2008/09/15: Doesn't compute
• 2008/09/14: BoE's Mansfield, Crook deserve kudos from parents
• 2008/06/19: Clarifying FCPS math curriculum
• 2008/06/16: TERC misinformation
• 2008/06/04: Does TERC work? Hear all about it tomorrow morning
• 2008/05/28: Victim of innovative LA curriculum leery of new TERC math
• 2008/05/27: 'Fuzzier math' coming to FCPS
• 2008/04/13: Assertions of FCPS math deficiencies don't add up
  
  
• 2007/09/04: School Notes — Starting off with good news
• 2007/08/30: Teamwork
• 2007/08/30: VIDEO of Ann Reever and Yvonne Wright (Lincoln co-principals)
• 2007/08/23: Middle school report
• 2007/06/06: Two (school) heads are better than one
• 2007/06/05: Lincoln adds co-principal as part of state-ordered restructuring
• 2007/01/26: Board plans for changes to Lincoln
  
  
• 2006/07/21: BoE must explain closed meetings
• 2006/02/28: Public or Private?
  
  
• 2004/06/05: Staffs change as school days lengthen

• 2010/02/18: Parents learn about possible charter school
• 2010/01/28: FCPS takes a step back in math
• 2010/01/28: Proposed change to math textbooks encourages parents
  
  
• 2009/12/17: Crook passed over again for president of school board
• 2009/11/19: Board member proposes ‘norm' to ensure polite dissension
• 2009/11/19: Letter on math misses the point
• 2009/11/19: Thank you, Angie Fish, for questioning the math curriculum
• 2009/10/29: School board member says her behavior may have violated guidelines
• 2009/10/22: I am the one teaching math to my child
• 2009/10/01: School board could become more transparent
• 2009/05/14: Help remove TERC math from the classroom
• 2009/04/30: Remove TERC math
• 2009/04/23: Attend Monday's meeting on TERC math
• 2009/04/09: Remove math program from our schools
• 2009/04/02: Sign the petition against TERC math
• 2009/03/26: Parents continue to push against math textbook
• 2009/02/19: Stop TERC math now before it's too late
• 2009/02/19: Parents, look carefully at your kids' math homework
  
  
• 2008/12/11: School officials should listen to parents
• 2008/11/13: New math textbook causes stir at Liberty
• 2008/10/02: This is no way to choose a curriculum
• 2008/09/25: A compromise for math
• 2008/09/25: Ethics panel declines school board probe
• 2008/09/25: Leadership is not arrogance
• 2008/09/18: The arrogance of the school board
• 2008/09/04: Stop TERC!
• 2008/09/04: Parents want ethics investigation on math
• 2008/08/21: TERC supports math curriculum
• 2008/08/14: It's not too late to stop TERC math
• 2008/08/07: Understanding math is the key
• 2008/07/25: Give standard math priority in class
• 2008/07/24: Editorial on TERC method just adds to the confusion
• 2008/07/18: More than one way to add
• 2008/07/17: Teacher training outweighs math curriculum
• 2008/06/26: Columnist called it right: FCPS is experimenting with our children’s education
• 2008/06/19: School system ready to roll out new mathematics curriculum
• 2008/06/05: Stop experimenting with our children’s education, again
  
  
• 2007/09/20: A back-to-school warning for parents

"State education officials acknowledged yesterday for the first time that they had changed the Maryland School Assessment this year in a way that experts say contributed to an unusually large rise in student test scores. "Maryland saw significant gains on the MSA this year, particularly among black and low-income students and those learning English." ...increases in Maryland are "really unusual."

[ Grade 6 | Grade 7 | Grade 8 | SAT data ]

[source]

[source of data]

According to FCPS Math Facts, "Add and subtract 2-digit numbers using a variety of increasingly efficient strategies" is second grade material, not 7th grade. Furthermore, any adult would immediately recognize that subtraction without regrouping (borrowing) is not a true test of a child's ability to subtract.

On May 28, 2009, I saw 'multi-digit subtraction without regrouping' as an homework exercise (seen right) for my first grade daughter -- the homework even had the same 'football' example. This is clearly first grade material, not seventh grade material.

This MSA test question is a prime example of the 'dumbing down' of the math system: Giving 1st grade homework as a 7th grade MSA test question. It is no wonder that many children do very well on the MSA.

[source of data]

FCPS argues that a calculator is a tool and children need to know how to use it to operate in the 21st century. OK. Then design test questions that test calculator knowledge and usage ability, and only allow calculator usage on these special questions. Since the question above is not about testing 'calculator knowledge', but rather "1.C.1.a Represent whole numbers on a number line", a calculator should not be allowed.

The state defines a manipulative as "Tools, models, blocks, tiles, and other objects which are used to explore mathematical ideas and solve mathematical problems" [source]. And since a calculator is a tool, you can now see the convoluted logic as to why a calculator is allowed.

The State needs to understand that the most important tool a child has is their mind, not a calculator.

"Maryland and 45 other states announced Monday that they will develop common national standards for what should be taught in classrooms from kindergarten through high school in reading and math."

"Eventually, the state will replace its Maryland School Assessments with a national test that is developed by the states collectively"

• Learning Math:
  
  
  • National Library of Virtual Manipulatives
  • WebMath - Kindergarten to 8th Grade Math
  • Webmath - How to Multiply Two Numbers (all steps shown)
  • How lattice multiplication works
  • Maryland Teaching and Learning Mathematics
  
  
• Frederick County Public Schools (FCPS):
  
  
  • FCPS Channel 18 Live Streaming Video
  • Board of Education meeting videos
  • Main FCPS School Web Site - fcps.org
  • The Curriculum - fcpsteach.org
  • Board of Education
  • BoE claims that Curriculum has not changed
  • www.mdreportcard.org - excellent source of Maryland test score data
  • Math Facts Version 1 (Sep 8, 2008)
  • Math Facts Version 2 (May 18, 2009)
  • Math Facts Version 3 (May 27, 2009)
  • Math Facts Version 4 (May 27, 2009)
  
  
• Frederick County:
  
  
  • Board of County Commissioner meeting videos
  
  
• Research / Studies / Papers:
  
  
  • Achievement Effects of Four Early Elementary School Math Curricula: Findings from First Graders in 39 Schools
  • Independent Study of Washington State K-8 Curriculum Review
  • Doing the Math: Are Maryland’s High School Math Standards Adding Up to College Success?
  • Independent Survey of Math Investigations Success Stories
  
  
• Take Action - Activism:
  
  
  • Frederick Education Reform
  • Petition to remove TERC math from FCPS
  
  
• Technical Education Research Centers:
  
  
  • Main Web Site
  • Investigations in Number, Data, and Space
  • Library of Information for TERC
  
  
• Other:
  
  
  • 2008 TERC Math vs. 2008 National Math Panel Recommendations
  • Reviews of 'Investigations in Number, Data, and Space'
  • Investigations Ineffective At Teaching Math
  • School Districts Abandon 'Math Investigations'
  • 'Math Investigations' Success Stories: UPDATE
  • TERC Investigations » Where's The Math?
  • Testimony before the Board of Education for the Frederick County Public Schools
  • CT Coalition 4 World Class Math
  • Review of Mathematical Soundness
  
  
• Videos:
  
  
  • Stacey McGiffin reads letter to Board about PIA/FOIA problems (June 24, 2009)
  • Sue Middleton Board of Education meeting (June 10, 2009)
  • Math Education: An Inconvenient Truth
  • Math Education: A University View
  • Why U.S. students are falling behind
  • It's a New World Out There
  • Math Education in Maryland
  • NBC News Reports on Fuzzy Math (February 18, 2008)
  
  
• Radio Shows:
  
  
  • Frederick Forum - June 13, 2009 - TERC Math
  • Blaine Young - May 14, 2009 - TERC Math
  • Bob Miller - May 19, 2009 - Bonnie Borsa on WFMD morning show discusses TERC
  
  
• Other Reform Math sites:
  
  
  • New York City HOLD National
  • Weapons of Math Destruction
  • GRAMA Request on Supporting Studies
  • Teach Math Right - Allow Choice For All Learners in PWCS

• Field 03: General Curriculum - Mathematics Subtest
• Field 09: Mathematics

Name:  E-mail:  PIN:  - your PIN is: Question: