Editor, Reading Daily Times Chronicle,
Reading MA

Mr. D. McGlathery 's letter of May 30, 1997 does little to clarify the mathematics controversy that is occurring nationwide and locally in Reading. The literature is replete with article after article taking issue with the "standards" proposed by The National Council of Teachers in Mathematics (NCTM) . This is not a new issue. In Education Week, (January 20, 1993 page36) Charles E. Finn Jr., former assistant U.S. Secretary of Education has a commentary entitled "What If Those Math Standards Are Wrong". He rightly points out that there

" is vast misunderstanding of what the NCTM has actually wrought. It is centered in confusion between " content standards" and "student- performance standards." Content standards describe what schools should teach and presumably- their pupils should learn....Student performance standards are something else. They involve how well youngsters must do in order to be said to have met the expectations of the content standards....To date, the NCTM has provided content standards only...But what most nonprofessionals have in mind.... are student-performance standards and those regrettably-The NCTM has not yet given us".

Dr. Frank Allen , Emeritus Professor in Mathematics at Elmhurst College, and a former President of the NCTM, in " A Critical Review of NCTM Policies with Special Reference to the Standards Reports"

1. Reference to allen1.htm
2. Reference to allen2.htm
3. Reference to allen3.htm

Dr. William G. Quirk, Ph.D. in Mathematics has written a four chapter treatise entitled "The Truth About the NCTM Standards". The reader is referred to the above two websites for further review and discussion.

For Mr. McGlathery to suggest that the NCTM Standards "represents a consensus of professionals in mathematical science" is unfortunately incorrect given the number of highly qualified dissenting opinions.

Mr. McGlathery correctly reports that Mr. Robert Herriot , a Palo Alto parent reviewed three of the current NCTM math framework reform mathematics programs. Mr. Herriot found that the UCSMP was the superior of the three programs reviewed. Mr. McGlathery maybe unaware of the article "An Evaluation of Selected Mathematics Textbooks" by Dr. Wayne Bishop, Professor of Mathematics, California State University. This paper reviewed four texts used in grade levels two and four with an emphasis on completeness of topics covered as suggested by the Core Knowledge Foundation. These were

1. Sadlier-Oxford, Division of William Sadlier, Inc.
2. Everyday Learning Corporation (UCSMP / Chicago Math)
3. SRA (Connecting Mathematics Concepts) Division of Macmillian/McGraw Hill and
4. Math K-4 by Nancy Larson published by Saxon Publishers.

CPR has continued to research the "NEW NEW MATH" controversy. Our requests are quite reasonable and prudent to protect our children:

1. Testing of all fourth graders by the California Achievement Test or a similar standardized test to determine how the fourth graders are doing as compared to national, state and town norms.
2. Formation of a Mathematics Task Force composed of teachers, educators, and parents with math and science backgrounds to examine and to verify the UCSMP claims.
3. Clarify how the UCSMP program was selected.