The School Board Does the Math

– By Jim Byrne –

A “rich discussion,” in the words of School Board Vice President Josh Nathan, on the elementary school math curriculum took place at the most recent Board of Education meeting Oct. 24.

At the core of the sometimes-heated debate were a variety of subjects pertaining to “Everyday Math,” the curriculum used by the District. While some government studies have shown that Everyday Math has positive learning effects, the Board voiced skepticism of the standards being set by the curriculum.

One of the main themes of the night was the concept of “basic math skills versus basic math facts,” and at what juncture in elementary school a student should have a solid set of each. A basic fact is any addition or subtraction problem up to 18+9 or 18-9. On the other hand, a basic skill, for example, is something like long division.

“I sent an e-mail to Assistant Superintendent Steve Cohen the next day, and in it I was very complimentary because I thought it was an incredible meeting,” said Board member Bob Zahm in a later phone interview. “If we can get what was committed in the meeting — a translation of expectations at the end of the year of basic math facts and basic math skills — in such a way that people can understand it, we would be in a great position to say what our kids know and what they're learning.”

“Everyday Math” has students using a constructive formula to obtain answers, as opposed to the classic “fact drilling” approach that most parents are familiar with and went through in their grade school days. These contrasting approaches were another point of contention Oct. 24.

The discussion heated up when Board member Edward Fox commented that he thought the constructivist model was cute, but felt that there should be a base knowledge of facts. His belief was that due to a lack of uniformity, it was impossible to get everyone on the same page. This drew applause from roughly half of the crowd, and pushed the discussion to a new level after a beginning that meandered. Fox concluded his argument with: “It's not the teacher's fault for being armed with a wrench to hammer a nail.”

In response, members of the math department countered that the current math lessons are well defined with a balanced program being provided. This generated applause from their side of the audience, but led to more input from Mr. Fox. His response was that he doesn't like teachers asking their students, “How do you do this,” but rather them telling the students, “Here is what you're going to do, and this is how you're going to do it.”

Things got testy for a moment when Mr. Zahm likened the constructive curriculum to “letting the inmates run the prison.” Steven Bluestone, the Math Enrichment coordinator, replied by asking Mr. Zahm if he wanted a math lesson. Mr. Bluestone then argued that he wants students to not just know the correct answers, but also understand how they arrived at them.

“I'm supportive of our staff,” said Mr. Zahm. “I think they're real good and that they are doing their best, but I am not convinced that all of the pieces come together the right way.”

With both sides having their say out in the open, the discussion then segued into the area of the state's math standards after Fox remarked that he thought the standards were too low. His thinking was that certain things that are being taught in third grade should be taught in first grade.

Mr. Zahm made the point that he did not want more tests, but more feedback to see how the students are grasping the lessons. Like Mr. Fox, he felt that after each grade, there should be a definitive amount of things a student should know. Mr. Zahm said that he holds the students of Rye to a higher standard than the state does, and Mr. Fox later added in a half-joking way that there should be a “Rye Math Curriculum.”

Zahm later explained how receiving more feedback — a basic “translation of expectations” — would help all involved with the curriculum. “We would be able to know where the gaps are in terms of what they are learning, which would allow us to identify areas in which the teachers could improve,” he said. “In addition, we would also be in a position to see if we are comfortable with what is stated as our curriculum's objective at the end of the year. The meeting was productive in establishing a common expectation for what was needed.”

Superintendent Dr. Edward Shine noted that Rye already has certain standards, yet both Mr. Nathan and Mr. Zahm had issues with the standards.

In the end, it came down to the Board wanting more feedback, with Mr. Fox wishing they could give the elementary students a math assessment test tomorrow. The need for a distinct Rye “measuring stick” is something that all agreed is necessary.

The “rich discussion” prompted Board President Jim Culyer to call for another work session on the subject, but as of press time one has not been scheduled.