Chris Jenner comments on curriculum from Open Forum section of Dec 19, 2005, Cary D-26 school board meeting
I need to say a few things
about curriculum.
First, I want to thank Dr.
O'Connor and the Math Task Force for bearing with the board and answering the
barrage of questions we had. As I've mentioned before, there are five new board
members unfamiliar with this process, and this board is very concerned about
its weakest function, monitoring district progress. I really appreciate the
time and effort the staff put in in responding.
I respect the members of the
Math Task Force and their backgrounds, and I appreciate the research and work
they've put in over the past four years. Whatever program we use, and this goes
for any subject -- not just math, its success is more dependent on parents and
staff than the program itself. And we have great parents and staff here in
District 26.
I'm not a trained curriculum
professional. But I am capable of doing research and applying critical
thinking. I've been researching and reading about curriculum for a couple
years, I didn't just start when the topic came up at the October board meeting.
Our curriculum selection is
based on a lot of research. There is one *huge* body of research that is
continually ignored, and it shouldn't be.
Project Follow Through was one of the
largest education studies ever. It started in 1967 and ran for almost 30 years,
having about a billion dollars invested in it.
I get the impression that
education colleges don't even mention Project Follow Through to their students,
let alone require them to analyze its findings. Why? I don't know. But the study
is too large to ignore, and its findings fly in the face of the education
theories that have gotten to be "in vogue" over the past 25 years, like
spiraling, multiple intelligences, discovery learning, and other theories and
methods that programs like Everyday Math and Connected Math are based on.
Project Follow Through
concluded that the most effective educational model
happened to be the most
simple, direct, and inexpensive. Singapore Math would be an example of an
educational model that Project Follow Through would find to be highly
effective.
I mention Singapore Math
because in three straight international comparisons -- the TIMMS studies of
1995, 1999, and 2003,
I'm not trying to make a
recommendation that we ignore four years of work by the Math Task Force and
change the direction we're headed, although I wouldn't mind if the Science Task
Force got familiar with Project Follow Through. I'm only stating my position on
curriculum issues, and how and why it was formed.
So after two years of my own
investigation and study, and applying critical thinking, I believe in the
conclusions of Project Follow Through, and I am not sold on the "fad"
educational models. I promise if I were the only person in District 26 that
held these beliefs, I'd vote the will of the community -- I'm here to represent
the community and not advance a personal agenda. I do know of other parents and
community members who share my views on this.
Whatever programs the board
adopts, for math or any other subject, I'll support it. I'll support whatever
we need to do for our staff to be successful with the program. And I'm sure our
staff and parents will overcome any weaknesses the program may have, and that
we will continue to send well-prepared freshmen into District 155.
Again, I just wanted everyone to know where I stand on curriculum and why. And while there will be times when I disagree, there's nothing personal -- I respect our staff, and will support the board's decisions. I know the board wants to support our staff, and will always keep highly educated kids at the forefront of our decision making.
American Institutes for Research report on U.S. International Mathematics Performance
More information on science curricula
Responses to criticisms of Direct Instruction
Email Chris Jenner at cjenner@cary26.k12.il.us or cjenner01@yahoo.com