We will begin to see improvements in mathematics education when citizens throughout the US make their voices heard. Best wishes in your search for truth...

## Wednesday, December 23, 2009

### Yesterday's Op-Ed

## Sunday, December 13, 2009

### State Sovereignty - RTT funds for Education $tandard$

## Sunday, November 29, 2009

## Saturday, November 21, 2009

### Who Needs Mathematicians for Math, Anyway?

*(By the way, this report was about performance standards, not content standards.)*

## Tuesday, June 30, 2009

### US Coalition for World Class Math!!

***Press Release***

**"Extraordinary numbers of grassroots groups have formed in recent years to learn more about current issues in mathematics education and to promote improvements in K-12 mathematics curricula," says Coalition co-founder Timotha Trigg. "Many parents believe there is already a crisis in mathematics education and fear that poor standards, if adopted by states on a national scale, would make the situation even worse."**

## Sunday, June 28, 2009

### MO Governor Signs-on to National Standards Initiative

**This could be a good thing...**

**IF NSI (NGA/CCSSO) JUST LISTENS TO SUBJECT-MATTER EXPERTS -THE RESULTS OF THEIR EFFORTS MIGHT ACTUALLY BENEFIT STUDENTS!**

## Tuesday, June 23, 2009

### Important to Know...

**California signed-on to the national standards initiative**

**WITH CONDITIONS.**

Penned by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Board of Education President Ted Mitchell, and State Superintendent Jack O'Connell, the Golden State put its name on the dotted line to "develop common core standards" and "participate in the international benchmarking efforts."

In my opinion, California's math standards should set the bar to measure our national standards. I'm SO GLAD that their state officials "cannot commit to adopting [common standards] until [they] have determined that they meet or exceed [their] own."**WAY TO GO CA! ****Since NGA/CCSSO won't disclose the membership of their writing workgroups, this would probably be a wise stance for all states to adopt.**

## Tuesday, June 9, 2009

### This Country Deserves Better!!

“If another country wanted other countries to respect its educational system and the reforms it was trying to make, who would it choose to lead such an important professional project as the development of its national standards in mathematics and in the language of its educational system itself? In any other country in the world, one would expect a distinguished mathematician at the college level to be asked to chair the mathematics standards-writing committee–someone who commands the respect of the mathematics profession (and obviously is an expert on mathematics). For the language standards-writing committee, one would likewise expect an eminent scholar in a college-level department–someone whose command of the language and understanding of the texts that inform the development of this language could not be questioned. If the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers had thought about national pride (and national need) as well as academic/educational expertise, then all of us would respect the Common Core Initiative and look forward with eagerness to the drafts the NGA and CCSSO have promised to make public in July.

These two organizations could have followed, for example, the exemplary procedures followed by the National Mathematics Advisory Panel, on which I had the privilege to serve. The Panel was chaired by the former president of one of the major universities in the country, all Panel members were identified at the outset, their qualifications were made known to the pubic, their procedures were open to the public and taped as well, and the final product was hammered out in public, after dozens of reviewers provided critical comments.

But instead of choosing nationally known scholars to chair and staff these committees–to assure us of the integrity and quality of the product–the NGA and the CCSSO have, for reasons best known to themselves, treated the initiative as a private game of their own. The NGA and the CCSSO haven’t even bothered to inform the public who is chairing these committees, who is on them, why they were chosen, what their credentials are, and why we should have any confidence whatsoever in what they come up with.

One person has announced on his own to the press and to a state department of education that he is chairing the mathematics standards-writing committee. He has not been contradicted by anyone at NGA or CCSSO, so we must assume he’s for real. It turns out he is an English major with no academic degrees in mathematics whatsoever. No one has yet announced on his/her own that he/she is chairing the English standards-writing committee. One wag has already wondered whether this person might be a mathematics major with no academic degrees in English. But it’s possible the sad joke in mathematics is not being repeated in English.

This country deserved better for a project of such national importance.”

## Wednesday, June 3, 2009

### Tax Dollars at Work - Reprise!

two of the Elementary Programs given

competitive priority for eMints/METS grants.

(see #8 at above link)

The math programs listed there are the same

programs in the report

On Evaluating Curricular Effectiveness:

Juding the Quality of K-12 Mathematics Evaluations

Committee for a Review of the Evaluation Data

on the Effectiveness of NSF-Supported and Commercially

Generated Mathematics Curriculum Materials

**In response to our charge, the committee finds that:**

The corpus of evaluation studies as a whole across the 19 programs studied does not permit one to determine the effectiveness of individual programs with high degree of certainty, due to the restricted number of studies for any particular curriculum, limitations in the array of methods used, and the uneven quality of the studies.

**Therefore, according to our charge, we recommend that:***No second phase of this evaluation review should be conducted to determine the effectiveness of any particular program or set of curricular programs dependent on the current database.*

commercial products in MO

## Tuesday, June 2, 2009

### Presentation to the State Board of Education

**about the presentation**

**to the**

**State Board of Education concerning**

**our state math standards.**

## Sunday, May 17, 2009

### National Math Standards Writing Team

__MUST__INCLUDE RESEARCH MATHEMATICIANS,

## Wednesday, May 6, 2009

### NEW ENTRIES-MISSOURI MATH COALITION

**Please share this information with your local**

**representatives**

**and school board members.**

**There's an informational flyer available**

**there that you can print up and distribute.**

**UNITED WE STAND!!**

## Tuesday, May 5, 2009

### Committee on Education and Labor Hearing

**Rigorous State-Led Common Standards and Assessments**

Here's a link to the members page of the House Committee on Education and Labor. http://edlabor.house.gov/about/members/

Here is a link to the release on common standards.

http://edlabor.house.gov/newsroom/2009/04/congress-must-support-state-ef.shtml

Here is a link to the George Miller, the committee Chairman's web page, including a means by which to contact him. http://georgemiller.house.gov/

## Saturday, April 18, 2009

### Arne Duncan in the Chicago Tribune

Close to home and right on target regarding

mathematics standards and assessment in the Show Me State.

"In too many places, including Illinois, we are lying to children now. [When] we tell a child they are meeting the state standards, the logical implication is that child's on track to be successful. In too many places, including Illinois, if you are meeting state standards you are barely qualified to graduate from high school and you are totally unqualified to go to a university and graduate," he said.

## Thursday, April 16, 2009

## Sunday, March 29, 2009

## Saturday, March 14, 2009

### IT'S NO PICNIC

**In the article, Brooks notes that some states seem to be racing to the bottom, while others have set rigorous proficiency standards. In my opinion, this is especially true of mathematics education in Missouri.**

The administration also will give money to states like Massachusetts that have rigorous proficiency standards. The goal is to replace the race to the bottom with a race to the top, as states are compelled to raise their standards if they hope to get federal money.

**Compare:**

**Notice that the work in Massachusetts involved mathematicians.**

## Thursday, February 26, 2009

### DESE and METS are supporting this?

*In response to our charge, the committee finds that:*

*The corpus of evaluation studies as a whole across the 19 programs studied does not permit one to determine the effectiveness of individual programs with high degree of certainty, due to the restricted number of studies for any particular curriculum, limitations in the array of methods used, and the uneven quality of the studies.*

Therefore, according to our charge, we recommend that:

No second phase of this evaluation review should be conducted to determine the effectiveness of any particular program or set of curricular programs dependent on the current database.

Therefore, according to our charge, we recommend that:

No second phase of this evaluation review should be conducted to determine the effectiveness of any particular program or set of curricular programs dependent on the current database.

## Saturday, February 21, 2009

### Missouri Math

**A statewide alliance of parents, students, teachers and community members with the mission of promoting authentic math education in Missouri public schools through world-class mathematics standards and high quality curriculum.**

**There's an informational flyer that you can print out**

## Friday, February 6, 2009

### Please Voice Your Opinion

Look at the programs reviewed and the conclusions made by the Mathematical Sciences Education Board. Then scroll down here to see the list of "approved mathematics curricula" for eMints/METS classroom grants today.

The Algebra I "End of Course Exam" is not what high school math teachers would consider Algebra I.

**We need truth in labeling!**

Don't take my word for it - ASK teachers or college faculty in your area for their opinions.

If you feel that there is a problem which must be addressed, PLEASE WRITE:

Missouri House of Representatives

(Look for Members of Committees involved in Education)

Missouri Senate

(Look for Members of Committees involved in Education)

Correspondence to the State Board of Education should be addressed to the Secretary of the Board of Education with a request to forward it to individual Board members. Missouri State Board of Education

Please consider copying your correspondence to the Missouri Math Coalition and to your local School Board.

---------------------------------------------------------------

**How does funding intented for educational technology affect school math programs?**

Grant program-approved mathematics curriculum models Missouri METS Coalition/Alliance

"Competitive priority will be given to applicants who have implemented National Science Foundation (NSF) funded mathematics and/or science curriculum that is research-based and standards-based."

Mathematics –

__Eligible mathematics curricula__include the following:

__Elementary Mathematics__

a. Everyday Mathematics®

b. Investigations in Number, Data and Space®

c. Math Trailblazers™

__Middle School (Junior High School) Mathematics__

a. Connected Mathematics 2™

b. Mathematics in Context®

c. MathScape: Seeing and Thinking Mathematically™

d. MATH Thematics

__High School Mathematics__

a. Contemporary Mathematics in Context©

b. Interactive Mathematics Program™

c. MATH Connections®: A Secondary

Core Mathematics Curriculum

d. Mathematics: Modeling Our World

e. SIMMS: Integrated Mathematics

**Does this mean that if a school district wants to write a grant for badly needed technology, they have to have adopted these mediocre math materials?**

I truly hope not! It's just wrong!!

## Friday, January 30, 2009

### Citizens Unite!!

## Thursday, January 8, 2009

### Undermining Local Control of Education...

**This is disturbing**

**, but I'm afraid it's the truth.**

**Even the most effective "top-down" implementation**

### SHOW ME (US) THE MONEY! (reprise)

Here is a great post that explains a recent history of the so-called "math wars", as well as how funding from the National Science Foundation has been awarded to support "math reforms"

It just doesn't make sense that millions of tax-payer dollars are spent to develop and disseminate math programs that so many mathematicians and scientists oppose

Have our tax-dollars been used to fund the demise of our nation's educational promise and economic competitiveness? (A question for NSFs Inspector General)

PLEASE SHARE THIS INFORMATION WITH YOUR FRIENDS, FAMILY, SCHOOL PERSONNEL, LOCAL AND STATE REPRESENTATIVES