**Comments to National Math Panel**

**Cambridge MA Sessions 9-13-06, 9-14-06**

From: Dave Marain, Supervisor of Mathematics

Representing: Ramapo HS Mathematics Department, Franklin Lakes, NJ 07417

Although I would prefer to be present and read this statement
personally, the risk of not getting on after making a trip of several
hours and the limitation to 5 minutes makes it somewhat prohibitive.

As I've noted previously, the limited opportunity for concerned
educators and others to express their sentiments balanced against 30-45
minute presentations for textbook publishers and 'established'
organizations does not send an encouraging message to those who feel the
outcomes from this panel are predetermined. I, for one, am more
optimistic than that, but the proof will be in the black and white
recommendations.

From discussing this with the secondary math teachers in my department,
with many concerned parents and with students over some time now, there
is broad consensus on the following points:

-   Problem: For some time now, we have observed and endured students'
    deficiencies in arithmetic and their impact on the ability to handle
    algebraic processes, comprehend the rules of algebra and retain
    algebraic skills and concepts. Our educators see glaring
    deficiencies in students' understanding of fractions and ratios.
    This is not acceptable.

> Recommendation: Students should master the facts of arithmetic and
> develop proficiency with fractions, decimals and percents WITHOUT the
> use of the calculator. Using the calculator to promote conceptual
> understanding and solve real-world problems with 'messy' decimals or
> irrationals is however strongly recommended, We believe this should
> COMPLEMENT the mastery of arithmetic skills -- no more than that.

-   Problem: *Algebra for All* in 8th grade? The problem is that Algebra
    in New Jersey is not exactly the same as Algebra in New York,
    Algebra in California, and Algebra here in Cambridge! Were it not so
    deleterious to our children's development of mathematics, it would
    be almost ludicrous to consider that textbook publishers are
    developing state-customized textbooks for Algebra 1 and other math
    courses. Although the differences are minor, they are nevertheless a
    reflection of a serious disconnect between what ALL of our students
    need and the need for publishers to meet the needs of individual
    education departments of 50 states. Why does it appear so obvious to
    our educators that it is insanity to have 50 different sets of state
    math assessments times several grade levels, yet it seems perfectly
    natural to governors and state commissioners of education. Testing
    companies are reaping the benefits of this, but are our children?
    Ironically, testing companies appear to be having difficulty keeping
    up with the demand for quality assessments. What's wrong with this
    picture?

> Recommendations:

-   First we have to make sure that we have '***Arithmetic for All***'
    in K-7! Our consensus here is that the concepts and skills from
    arithmetic and prealgebra must be far more standardized than they
    are now. The ONLY way to insure *equity for all* is to standardize
    the curriculum and set the bar higher than it is now.

-   Instead of developing massive texts containing beautiful pictures
    and wonderful applications to every vocation and applications that
    address every states' requirements, we strongly believe that the
    time has come to step back and demand that ***essential content***
    be given the highest priority. We feel that each of you on this
    panel needs to ask yourself the following question: *How have our
    esteemed national math and science groups responded to Bill
    Schmidt's concerns over a decade ago about a curriculum that is too
    broad and too shallow?* Translating a text from Singapore is not the
    answer. We need to take the best knowledge we currently have about
    how children develop mathematical understanding and balance that
    with the skills needed for those ideas to take root and have
    meaning. How many of you on this panel have observed numerous math
    lessons in this country that reflect students' '*profound
    understanding of fundamental mathematics*'. We can all cite a few
    instances for sure, particularly if you are personally working on
    such a project. We're talking however about more than a small
    handful of classrooms. Why are Japanese students in an 8th grade
    classroom spending an entire class period tackling sophisticated
    problems that require analysis, conceptual understanding and skill?
    In fact, we believe that this kind of activity is precisely what
    enables a child to develop that profound understanding. Isn't it all
    about the kinds of questions we ask and the questions we generate
    and encourage from our students? Isn't it all about setting the bar
    higher? We believe it is. Problem-solving however should only be
    part of the picture. One cannot solve a problem without the proper
    tools. We do not believe that the majority of our children are
    currently provided with those tools. This must change!

> Thank you for the opportunity to share our concerns. We fervently hope
> that the Panel will respond to these concerns and make the bold
> recommendations needed for our children to survive and compete in the
> 21st century. We await your response...