Barbie and Jim Brady agree: Math is hard

By Laurie H. Rogers

Omigod! I’m so happy. The mystery is solved. I can finally go back to the peaceful life I left in 2007 when I first realized that Spokane has a serious math problem. Last week, I arrived home from Canada, to multiple emails and phone calls suggesting that I read the Aug. 14 Spokesman-Review article on college math remedial rates. Ever the accommodating advocate, I did, and now I know the truth.

The reason we’re staring at an entire generation of students who lack basic math skills is that math is hard. No, no, it’s true. Jim Brady, from Spokane Falls Community College, reportedly told SR reporter Jody Lawrence-Turner that math is hard, and Lawrence-Turner must not have been able to locate a credible contrary view – anywhere in the country. Plus, Jim Brady is dean of Computing, Math and Science at SFCC. He’s in charge over there, so his opinion must be right.

How easy and obvious. And only three syllables. My world has been magically simplified. I feel a bit silly, though, having completely missed this for four and a half years. I never thought math is hard – certainly not basic math. I thought the district makes math hard – impossible, actually – then turns around and blames everyone else. I’ve argued that for years, to little effect at the central office and school board, and to nearly dead silence at the newspaper. Now I see why they view me with such disdain. I was wrong; why bother talking with someone who’s wrong?

Math is hard. No wonder no one wants to hold the district accountable for the area’s low pass rates on state math tests, high college remedial rates, low levels of math skills in graduates, and high levels of math anxiety across the entire city. If math is hard, that would be totally unfair.

The advocates I know across the country will be relieved to know the problem is solved and we can return to our families. They’ll feel sheepish knowing how wrong we were – about math, about the problem, and about the solution. Indeed, like the caterpillar in Alice in Wonderland says, we’ve been “wrong from beginning to end,” and you can’t be more wrong than that.

It turns out that the math problem isn’t the awful curriculum, distracting learning environment, excessive constructivism, or administrative micromanaging, as we advocates have been saying. Those issues – and the scientifically conducted research on those issues – weren’t mentioned in the newspaper’s Aug. 14 article. They weren’t important enough for the newspaper to examine them at all over the last several years.

The problem isn’t ineffective teachers, as the Spokane superintendent is always saying. It isn’t poverty, as instructional coaches shouted out earlier this year in my community forums. It isn’t a lack of patience on the part of parents, as district administrators frequently interrupted us to claim. It isn’t a money issue (so adding more dollars to the budget won’t fix it). It isn’t too much local decision-making (so a federal takeover of public education won’t fix it). It isn’t due to weak standards, unmotivated children or uninvolved parents. And it isn’t a data problem (so a new $2.5 million data system won’t fix it). We advocates always knew all of that.

But now we know that math is too hard. We must therefore stop expecting things from the leadership. It isn’t fair to be angry about a failed K-12 math program or a failed college remedial math program, not fair to hold Jim Brady or the superintendent accountable for failing to accomplish something that’s obviously impossible. Now we can understand why Mr. Brady and his SFCC colleagues chose recently to align the SFCC math program with Spokane’s failed K-12 math program so that everyone can feel great about math. All of SFCC's remedial math students will be able to continue scaffolding their prior knowledge in order to achieve group consensus on reaching an equitable and socially just number and level of advanced skills, self-constructed in a metacognitive and collaborative stream of child-centered, deeper conceptual, problem-solving alignment.

What a relief. We no longer need to wonder about those privately schooled, homeschooled, and tutored students who do achieve in math, who don’t test into remedial math in college, and who don’t believe that math is hard. They must be anomalies. Perhaps they’re gifted, weird, bionic, or maybe not even real. Honestly, we can’t expect all of the children to be bionic or not real.

Besides, there are more important things in life than math. Things like shopping and movies, taking showers, making a perfect soufflé like Gordon Ramsay on TV, and monitoring one’s horoscope. And there are tons of jobs our graduates can get that don’t require math, like answering the phone, sweeping the floor, and cleaning swimming pools. People also could babysit, mix drinks or lifeguard. There are lots and lots of non-math jobs out there. Lots.

I feel like a huge weight has been lifted from my shoulders, like I just ate a cream puff or a sugary confection. There’s a humming in my ears and I feel a bit lightheaded. I hear Barbie in the background, burbling “Math is too hard” each time someone pulls on the string. How funny and cool that she’s back with us. She really was way ahead of her time.

I did – just for a second – see a small dark shadow out there – insignificant really, what looked like hordes of foreign students pouring across the border to nab seats in our colleges, take jobs in our businesses, and drag American jobs overseas, never to be seen again – but that must have been the sugar rush one gets from eating a Twinkie or reading the local newspaper.

At last I get it. Jim Brady says math has been hard for decades, and I believe him. It’s of no consequence that America’s public schools have depended on the current version of reform math for 22 years now, and on other incarnations of reform math off and on for generations before that. Why make this complicated? Why persist in wrong-headed thinking? Why be antagonistic and difficult, or risk being labeled a nutjob, whacko or conspiracy theorist? Why make everyone feel so awful? Let’s be happy.

I’m sure grammar is too hard, too. The district wisely chose to channel its resources away from grammar to more important things like equity and social justice. Cursive writing also is hard, and history is hard (too many numbers) – and civics. Who can even keep straight all of those branches of government? Especially nowadays.

You know what? The whole damn thing is too hard. I mean really. It’s time to face facts. They can’t teach our children because it can’t be done.

And with this simple concept, pioneered by Barbie, confirmed by Jim Brady, voted on by the school board, implemented by the district, and delivered solemnly to us by The Spokesman-Review, we could reform and transform our entire society.

Numbers in general are hard, don’t you think? All of those pointy edges. You have to add them and subtract them and … what’s that other one?… I’m getting a headache already, just thinking about it. And why should we? They’re all on the Internet. We can find them if we need them. Like, there’s a 3 and a 7 and a 5. And another one – I forget it, exactly, but it has a circle on top of another circle, like glasses, except sideways and with no arms. I think that’s all of them.

Now I can go back to more important business, like figuring out why so few graduates can get into college or get a job. It’s a national problem. I think Jim Brady should run the Federal Reserve. Math is hard there, too. It’s also hard in Congress, where they have so many zeroes. Let’s all take a break from math, take a nap and not worry about it. Someone will do it for us. Like WALL-E. He’ll do it. I love that little guy. The space dancing in WALL-E was so cute, and I’m glad he lived.

I’m hoping that Barbie, Jim Brady and the newspaper will confirm that weeding the garden is hard. I could really get behind them on that one. Also cleaning. And driving. And walking. And thinking. I’ve been doing way too much thinking.

Surprise me, Mr. Brady. Your comments have been a true gift. Give me more. I think my birthday is coming up soon.



Please note: The information in this post is copyrighted. The proper citation is: Rogers, L. (August 2011). "Barbie and Jim Brady agree: Math is hard." Retrieved (date) from the Betrayed Web site: http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailing.blogspot.com/

This article also was posted August 24 at EducationViews: http://educationviews.org/2011/08/24/barbie-and-jim-brady-agree-math-is-hard/ 

District not replacing math materials for two more years

By Laurie H. Rogers


After more than 20 years of absolute commitment to a “reform” approach to K-12 mathematics, our nation has a serious math problem. Students suffer from high remediation rates in math in college, low pass rates on state math tests, low levels of math skills, high student anxiety toward mathematics, and high dropout rates.

Properly conducted research clearly indicates serious problems with the K-8 math programs used in Spokane Public Schools (Investigations in Number, Data, and Space and Connected Mathematics Project (CMP). Public feedback at our community forums indicates widespread discontent with the district’s approach to math. You’d think all of that would be enough to convince Spokane administrators and board directors to replace the district’s much-criticized K-8 math programs.

Think again.

For four years and seven weeks, I’ve been asking administrators to replace these awful math materials. Since Nov. 8, 2010, I’ve been asking if they plan to do it. I want their answer “on the record” – delivered in public or in writing. Longtime district administrator Karin Short has repeatedly refused to deliver an answer in writing. And, rather than direct the superintendent to have her staff comply with this citizen request, board president Sue Chapin appears to find fault with my request for a written answer.

That’s where things stood for 153 days, until March 14. On that day, I finally got my answer in public. The answer is no. They don't plan to replace these materials – not for at least two years and not because the public asked them to. What they're waiting for is the "common" curriculum.

On March 14, at a Spokane Public Schools Citizens Advisory Committee meeting, district administrators discussed how they plan to fix the middle schools. Administrative “solutions” to the middle-school problem include adopting new methods for assessing teachers, and hiring an unnamed “expert.” The math materials weren’t mentioned.

So, at that meeting, I again asked Tammy Campbell, executive director of instructional programs, if the district planned to replace Connected Mathematics (CMP). She said CMP wouldn’t be replaced for at least two more years. Two years from now, she said, the national initiatives for the Common Core State Standards, common tests, and common curricula will necessitate changes and the district doesn’t want to spend money now or drag teachers through multiple changes.

Thus, we can already see how federal control results in local paralysis. I’ll also note here that it’s questionable whether the Common Core initiatives ultimately will bring the changes in math that the children actually require.

Meanwhile, I noted to Campbell on March 14 that research indicates that CMP is a weak program. She said other districts (Lake Washington, Bellevue, Issaquah, and Federal Way) use CMP and do well with it. This argument is weak. Statistically, these district comparisons are neither valid nor reliable.

• Comparison districts should have similar types of student populations. The four districts Campbell chose are not similar to Spokane in this way.
• Students in comparison districts should have a similar background in mathematics. Spokane uses Investigations in Number, Data, and Space to prepare its K-5 students for middle-school math. Bellevue, however, uses Math Expressions, and Lake Washington uses enVisionMATH -- both have a more-traditional structure. Federal Way uses a mix of traditional and reform programs.
• We don’t know much about these other districts’ students or math programs.
• When did the districts adopt their math programs? How were those programs implemented, used, modified or supplemented? We don’t know.
• How many students in those districts received outside supplementation or tutoring in math? How many came from other districts, programs, states or countries? We don’t know.
• Campbell said these four other districts are “doing well” with CMP.
• Federal Way no longer uses CMP. It finally replaced CMP with programs that use a more-traditional structure.
• In 2010, Bellevue's 10th-grade pass rate in math was 67.7%. Issaquah's was 70.6%. Lake Washington had a 61.3% pass rate in 8th grade and a 66% pass rate in 10th grade. Next to Spokane's 48.5% pass rate in 8th grade and 38.9% pass rate in 10th grade, the other districts looked better, but let's not get carried away. The math tests were on "basic skills." Students needed just 56.9% to pass the 10th-grade test, and just 55% to pass the 8th-grade test.

Here’s what I take away from Campbell’s March 14 answer. Our district administrators:

• Are OK with allowing our children and grandchildren to suffer for at least two more years with obviously failing math programs – quite possibly the two worst programs in the country. In a child’s math life, this is a massive, devastating amount of time.
• Are willing to let our children and grandchildren flounder and fail while they continue to chug down our tax money and wait for other people to tell them what to do.
• Appear to not understand what good research looks like.
• Appear to not understand logic. If CMP and Investigations are as good as Campbell claimed on March 14, why is the district talking about replacing them in two years? And, if they aren’t as good as she claimed, why would she not change them now in order to help the students?
• Cling to the idea that reform math programs are better than traditional programs, and that if the teachers would just DO the reform programs properly, everything would be fine.
• Really want the Common Core State Standards, tests and curriculum. What does that tell you about where these federal initiatives are likely to take us?

In the end – despite weak student outcomes, high remediation rates in math, low pass rates on state math tests, high dropout rates, research indicating problems with these reform programs, 20 years of criticism from STEM professionals, and much local feedback from students, parents, and community members asking for a more-structured approach to mathematics – Spokane administrators refuse to budge.

I get a clear sense that in Spokane, as in many districts across the country, public education is all about the adults – about what they like, about what they want to do, about what kind of money they want to spend or not spend, and about where they want to go with things.

It isn’t about the students’ academic needs at all.

Please note: The information in this post is copyrighted. The proper citation is

Rogers, L. (March 2011). "District not replacing math materials for two more years." Retrieved (date) from the Betrayed Web site: http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailing.blogspot.com/

This article was published March 27, 2011, on educationnews.org at this address: http://www.educationnews.org/commentaries/152347.html

District tries to silence dissenting voices

By Laurie H. Rogers

Note from Laurie Rogers: Our public forums are designed to inform, to collect input, and to provide like-minded people with a path for improving math education in Spokane. The forums are public, with no expectation of privacy. We will make every effort to maintain privacy and to quote statements rather than specific people. However, district administration and board directors should expect to be directly and freely quoted.


Wow. WOW.

John Barber, retired engineer, Clint Thatcher, retired math instructor, and I are holding free community forums on K-12 math education. I am shocked at how school district employees treated members of the public at our Feb. 7 forum at Shadle Public Library.

The stated goals of our forums are to:

1. inform the community about the math materials being used in our schools,
2. listen to what parents and concerned community members had to say about the math program, and
3. gather together like-minded individuals for future conversations.

Several Spokane administrators, instructional coaches and other supporters of the district’s approach to math instruction laughed at us, interrupted us, criticized us, mocked us, and shouted us down. Some refused to sit down when asked to do so; several refused to obey the rules we had set. Frequently, when we tried to return to a discussion of the math materials, or we tried to turn over the floor to parents and community members who had come to talk about the math materials, district employees accused us of being rude.

“You can’t do that,” we were told at our forum.

They sure tried hard to silence the public voice, but they didn't succeed. We’re asking members of the public to come to the next forum on Feb. 15 and exercise your right to speak about your concerns. Bring relatives; bring friends, and when we ask if you have something to say, please raise your hand and say it.

Many of the people obstructing our forums have the future of our children in their hands. If I were a caring district employee, I would be embarrassed to be associated with them. If they worked for me, they would be fired so fast, they would be a blur on the way out the door. Actually, some of them do work for me. I’m the taxpayer, and they are taxpayer-funded. But I have no way to fire them. In Spokane, administrator jobs are practically set in concrete.

Even I didn’t know our district is stocked with so many people who would go out of their way to sabotage our efforts to speak with the people about the math materials used in Spokane Public Schools.

It makes you wonder what they’re so worried about. Why stack our little community forum with avid supporters of reform math and constructivism? Why shout us down when we try to discuss the abysmal student outcomes? Why interrupt and speak over parents and grandparents who try to explain how things are for their families? If administrators honestly believe in their approach, if it actually works, why alienate so many people by defending a system that brought Spokane to a 38.9% pass rate on the 2010 math test (on which students needed just 56.9% to pass)? They must be feeling anxious.

Administrators Tammy Campbell, Karin Short, and Rick Biggerstaff again did not have an answer to offer for that 38.9% pass rate in Spokane. Campbell claimed that:

1. things have improved over time. (But this is true only for a few groups, and only slightly), and
2. Spokane is doing better than the state averages. (But this is not true for Spokane 8th or 10th graders. Additionally, the other, better results she mentioned are still awful.)

On Jan. 31, John, Clint and I held our first community forum at South Hill Public Library. That meeting also was packed with supporters of the district’s weak math materials and its “constructivist” (or “discovery”) approach to teaching math. We allowed people to talk at will, and administrators and instructional coaches defended their approach to math for much of the meeting.

We felt that parents and community members didn’t get enough time to speak on Jan. 31, so at our Feb. 7 forum, we asked the administration and instructional coaches to stay quiet so that we could hear first from the parents and community members who had come to express their concerns.

There was immediate rebellion from district staff in attendance, as if the meeting was theirs, as if they had set the agenda, as if we were the ones being rude. We were interrupted constantly, shouted down, told that we were interrupting and being rude. We kept trying to bring the conversation back to the math materials – the entire reason we had set the meeting. But district personnel and supporters of reform were having none of it.

Campbell interrupted a parent and a grandma. She interrupted me. Short interrupted me. Other district administrative types interrupted John, Clint and me and laughed at us. Whenever I tried to answer a question – and yes, I did occasionally try to clarify or stop someone from going on for too long – I was interrupted and accused of being rude. I tried repeatedly to get Campbell to answer how she would fix our low pass rates, and she sniffed that she hadn’t been allowed to talk, so she wasn’t going to answer.

What is she? Six years old?

They haven’t been good at running a math program that will get our children where they need to go in math, but they are very good at running things the way they want; at obstructing anyone who wants traditional instruction; at blaming things on teachers, parents and students; and at rudely interfering when the public wants to speak. I have always felt sympathy for our teachers, but sympathy has become empathy. Imagine living with that day after day after day. Who could stand to be bullied that way?

Clint, John and I did our best on Feb. 7 to seek civil discourse with district employees who refused to be civil, who openly mocked others, and who expected to control the discussion at our forum. I have no idea how it looked from the outside, but from the inside, it was shocking. And telling.

The message from last night’s forum was clear; administrators do not see the students’ low pass rates, high dropout rates, high remediation rates, or concerns from parents and community members as any reason to change course on math. They are so sure that they know and that we don’t, they don’t appear to think they have to listen or even be polite. They have a million excuses why the math problem isn’t their beloved reform math, and our children will continue to suffer for it.

If anything in math is to change for students in Spokane Public Schools, these people must be replaced with people who understand the math problem and who will show some respect for parents, teachers, and others in the community.

John, Clint and I are concerned volunteers. We care about the children and about the future of our community and our country. We’re trying to do a good thing – holding public forums so that the public can share concerns about the district’s math program. We tried our best to allow the public to talk at the Jan. 31 and Feb. 7 forums, but district administration, instructional coaches and other supporters of reform were unbelievably, shockingly rude – not just to us, but to all of the people who took time from their busy schedules to attend. What is a concerned community member to do?

Don’t let them get away with this bullying behavior. Please tell your friends, relatives and acquaintances to come to our forums. See how little your point of view matters to those in control of the math program. Our forums are free and community centered. They are intended to obtain feedback from parents and other members of the public who are concerned about the math program. They are not designed to listen to reform twaddle, to support district excuses, or to help defend the reformers' interests. All attendees will be expected to adhere to simple rules of conduct. If you live in a different district, you’re welcome to join us. The math problem is not exclusive to Spokane.

Our next forums:
Feb. 15, 6-8 p.m., Shadle Public Library
Feb. 26, noon-2 p.m., Hillyard Public Library
March 8, 6-8 p.m., Moran Prairie County Library

Let’s give this another try, shall we? John, Clint and I want to hear from people who have concerns about how math is being taught. Let’s have civility, respect, and an honest discussion about the math materials.

Please note: The information in this post is copyrighted. The proper citation is:
Rogers, L. (February 2011). "District tries to silence dissenting voices." Retrieved (date) from the Betrayed Web site: http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailing.blogspot.com/