Update on Everyday Math in DC: Response to FOIA request

My first FOIA request to Washington DC Public Schools (DCPS) resulted in them sending me a copy of the form that reviewers had to fill out to rate the various math textbooks being reviewed. It was a blank form. I decided that perhaps I needed to be more specific in my FOIA request so I wrote a more detailed one on August 14. On October 27, at long last, I received a response to my second FOIA request to DCPS regarding their selection of Everyday Mathematics as the text to be used in the DCPS system.

I attached a summary report prepared by Standard Works, Inc., on their recommendations for math texts. It is here:

• EMDCPS.pdf:

Their recommendation reads somewhat neutral though there are some things that are strange in their write-up. They acknowledge the "math wars" on this subject and state only that both sides of the war have valid points and both sides should be taken seriously. They state that EM requires a great deal of professional development to implement it. This is an interesting statement because the same criticism has been leveled at Singapore Math. In the case of Singapore Math, however, "need for professional development" is often one of the excuses given for not adopting the program, whereas with EM, it rarely stops anyone. (Baltimore may be the exception). Furthermore, one wonders what the teacher preparation for EM consists of--how to teach what isn't presented?

The report states that EM is best implemented with supplemental materials. That's a hoot. Since the district didn't BUY any supplemental materials to help implement EM, that means they'll be using the books they previously used. Why not save the district a lot of money and just not buy the EM texts? If EM use in my daughter's school in Fairfax County, Virginia is any indication, the old texts are really what are going to be relied on to teach math of any value.

Other info: I had asked for signed statements by evaluators indicating they had no professional or commerical affiliations with any of the textbook companies, vendors, or sales repts associated with the books being considered. RESPONSE: "Please be advised that there are no signed statements by evaluators indicating that they had no professional or commercial affiliations with any of the textbook companies, vendors or sales representatives associated with the books being considered. The evaluators were verbally questioned about conflicts and no (sic) indicated that a conflict existed."

I asked for resumes/CVs of the curriculum specialists involved in the review of math textbooks. DCPA is still working on getting that info to me, per a telephone call I had with that office, but they state in their letter: "As we discussed, resumes/CV contain information that is of a personal nature and subject to Exemption 2, D.C. Code 2-534 (a0(2). ... DCPS can disclose the documents if the personal information can be redacted. I will review the requested resumes/CVs to determine whether the personal information is of a nature that it can be redacted."

Other than addresses, phone numbers and the like, I can't imagine what type of personal information in a resume or CV is of such a nature that it cannot be disclosed to the public.

(For background and history on the adoption of EM in Washington DC, go to http://www.kitchentablemath.net/twiki/bin/view/Kitchen/EverydayMathInDC.)

-- BarryGarelick - 28 Oct 2005

Comments

After entering a comment, users can login anonymously as KtmGuest (password: guest) when prompted.
Please consider registering as a regular user.
Look here for syntax help.

Back to: Main Page.

• EMDCPS.pdf: