Schools

Letter: Parents Speak Out Against School Board Chair.

The following letter was submitted by the Fairfield Math Advocates.

[Editor's note: The following post was submitted by the Fairfield Math Advocates as a letter to the editor in response to an editorial by School Board Chair Philip Dwyer in a recent edition of the Fairfield Minuteman.]

Dear Chairman Dwyer,

We condemn your editorial titled “FMA Wrong On Student And Teacher Performance, A Personal Perspective,” that was published in the Tuesday, July 2, 2013 edition of the Fairfield Minuteman newspaper as well as in their online edition as we believe it is intended to intimate parents, is replete with misstatements and inaccuracies, and exhibits a lack of understanding of the law surrounding this matter as well as the manner in which the complaint arose. 

We believe your extremely misguided editorial is an attempt to intimidate and harass the Complainants, the 201 parents and individuals who have signed our petition, and others who have advocated, and may wish to advocate, for the educational interests of their child.  In fact, our petition’s signatures decline dramatically the day after Superintendent Dr. Title disseminates the Math Teacher letter to reporters and PTA leadership on June 25. The signatures remain negligible after your editorial is published on July 2. See chart in attached PDF. 

Your thinly veiled attempt, in the article’s title and byline, to distance yourself from your role, as chairman, in allowing 800 students to rely on what you admit in your editorial is a deficient textbook to learn algebra for an entire year, is both unprofessional and disingenuous. Parents have noted in the petition comments, in personal emails to us and through conversations that their children have suffered with anxiety well beyond what is typically associated with moving onto a more difficult subject. Parents have also endured heartache in not being able to properly support their child either academically or financially.  Those that could find and afford tutors have done so.  Some of these paid tutors are teachers that work within our district. 

Find out what's happening in Fairfieldwith free, real-time updates from Patch.

An editorial is a statement written to influence the opinion of its readers and others, who may hear of its contents through conversation with the reader. On June 26, we emailed a letter (see attached), addressed to the “Fairfield Board of Education Members,” to the Connecticut State Department of Education and all parties through their attorneys, making all parties aware of our concerns regarding a letter allegedly written and signed by ten middle school math teachers and forwarded through Dr. Title’s administrative assistant’s email to 15 local and state reporters. We have since learned that Dr. Title, through his administrative assistant, forwarded this letter to all PTA leadership throughout the district. 

Therefore, we were shocked to learn of yet another letter published in our local newspaper targeting parents and us, less than a week later, this time written by the chairman of the FBOE. Mr. Dwyer, as Chairman of the FBOE you are a party to Byrne et al. v. Fairfield Board of Education. You have a direct interest in the outcome of this case now pending before the State Board of Education and the Connecticut State Department of Education. We believe your editorial represents an indirect communication regarding issues in this case with “a hearing officer or any member of the agency, or with any employee or agent of the agency assigned to assist the hearing officer or members of the agency in such case.”  As such, we were not afforded “notice and opportunity” “to participate in the communication.”

Find out what's happening in Fairfieldwith free, real-time updates from Patch.

We will now address the merits of the statements included in your editorial.

“Publicity about the Fairfield Public School (FPS) approving a new math textbook has been generated by parents who began to lobby for a specific math program – Singapore Math.” 

Parents were made aware that a new textbook was being used by their students, not by the FBOE, Central Office or their student’s teachers.  Use of a new textbook was not disclosed during any of the Math Nights, as suggested by the most recentFairfield Citizen article. As early as September, students began to complain to their parents that they couldn’t bring home their textbook to help with homework or review for tests, that they didn’t have any notes to review because they were not assigned the role of “note taker,” that they worked in groups and only questions approved by the group could be asked of the teacher, that teachers spent very little time “teaching” and didn’t directly answer questions. 

Students who typically struggled with learning felt ashamed and believed they were failing math. Gifted students, who could not work ahead unless their group completed their work, felt anxiety in their role of teaching their group and believed they were not properly prepared to master the concepts. The complaints escalated to “I hate math.”  We now know that teachers spent very little time instructing and did not directly answer questions as part of the new learning methodology established by the administration and directly supported and required by the CPM textbook.

On September 20th, one of the complainants sent a pointed email expressing her concerns to Dr. Gary Rosato, former district curriculum leader when the CPM textbook contract was entered into, and now principal of her child’s middle school.

More parents got involved and started asking questions – first of other parents, then of teachers, Central Office Administrators and the Board of Education Members.  The new dynamic taking place in all 8th and 9th grade algebra classrooms, impacting 800 plus students, was called a number of things by all involved including “new learning methodology,” “new curriculum,” "instructional model.” Again, use of a new textbook was not a part of these discussions. 

At the November 27th Board of Education meeting with Superintendent Dr. Title present, board members were still trying to determine if a new textbook was being used.  Complainant Byrne sent a photo of the CPM textbook in an email to board members in an attempt to clear up confusion.  At the December 11 Board of Education Meeting, Deputy Superintendent Karen Parks put the matter to rest when she stated, “two things have changed, an instructional model and a book.”

To compound matters, administrators were in the process of rolling out the new elementary math curriculum and textbook selection to the Board of Education.  Some parents who had children who were struggling or were familiar with the Algebra 1 matter, also began advocating, as they had in the past, for Singapore Math to be adopted by FBOE for use in appropriateelementary grades as Singapore Math does not extend into middle or high school. Advocacy efforts became intertwined such that involved parents were asking for an understanding of what was happening in the algebra classrooms as well as for the use of elementary and middle school classroom materials and curriculums that were being used by our neighboring districts, as well as our DRGs – Singapore Math.

“Their goal seems to have changed to being critical of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and an effort to impose their preferred method of teaching math upon our professional, certified teachers.”

First, as we have stated numerous times since we began advocating for our student’s educational interests, we support and value teachers.  In our recent letter noting our concern about Dr. Title’s forward of the “Math Teachers Letter,” we noted:

“As parents, we are dedicated to educational excellence and the best interests of all Fairfield students.  We have maintained that our issue is withFairfield Public School District’s leadership as well as the FBOE, not with teachers. We support teachers and do not believe that they bear any responsibility in selecting or allowing the unapproved textbook to be used by 800 8th and 9th grade students for a full school year.”

Pitting parents against teachers is vicious, undermines the educational process, and is contrary to the interests of all students. This level of hostility must stop now.

Second, we have stated that the District is misinterpreting the application of certain Common Core Mathematical practices. We believe that the Central Office Administration has placed excessive weight on a single principle of Common Core Mathematical practices either because they are misinterpreting CCSS or, in an effort to force the adoption of the CPM textbook as well as a learning methodology that relies almost exclusively on group learning.  

As we have said in the past, we are not opposed to a percentage of class time dedicated to group work.  We welcome instructional rigor.  We believe it is important that students are able to articulate how they arrived at an answer and why algebra is important to understand the world around them.  We expect and anticipate that our children will struggle to do all those things, some of the time, just not all of the time.

“FMA also represents the upcoming Connecticut State Department of Education (CSDE) hearing as an investigation, when in fact is a hearing on a technical application of textbook approval law adopted in 1887.  Let’s review.”

We read the Connecticut Commissioner of Education’s Investigative Report recommending that the State Board of Education order an inquiry into Count 2 of the complaint in Byrne et al. v. Fairfield Board of Education.  Unlike FBOE members or members of Central Office, we were present and gave testimony requesting a formal inquiry in addition to an assessment, remediation and a suggestion that a new law be adopted to prevent the use of textbooks without proper vetting and BOE approval. 

Connecticut General Statue Section 10-229(a) exists to prevent deficient textbooks from being used by our children, “No board of education shall change any textbook used in the public schools except by a two-thirds vote of all members of the board, notice of such intended change having been previously given at a meeting of such board held at least one week previous to the vote upon such change.”  If boards were able to “use” any textbook for any period they saw fit, it would leave no reason for the law to exist.  That the law exists, and has existed for over a 125 years, should speak to its relevance, and not its perception as a mere technicality or “technical application of textbook approval.” 

CPM Textbook

After properly vetting the CPM textbook in May of this year, the administration determined it had deficiencies. Despite investing one year of training, one year of experimenting on students, an enormous amount of energy by parents, administrators and the FBOE to understand and address the textbook “debacle,” and $13,000 for its use, the administration chose not to continue its use next school year and beyond. 

We recommend that the FBOE stipulate that the CPM textbook was used in all Algebra 1 classrooms for one school year and allow the process to move forward to remediation.

Two independent groups support the position of the Fairfield Public schools.  The Connecticut Association of Public School Superintendents (CAPSS) and the Connecticut Association of Boards of Education (CABE) have filed support letters and agree that when a school system decides to pilot a textbook, however designed, it is implementing a legitimate process and is an established practice throughout Connecticut.”

We have read the support letters as they too were published in the Fairfield Sun newspaper edition on July 5th (see attached). In fact, the CABE letter was inappropriately titled “Local School Board Gets Support from State.” 

Recently, yet another news article appears in the Fairfield Citizen titled “School Board, Superintendent Allies Back Local Officials In Math Dispute” that reports on the CABE and CAPSS letters.  (See attached or click here to read an online version of the article.)

It is our understanding that Fairfield pays $20,000 per year to belong to the Connecticut Association of Boards of Education (CABE). It is also our understanding that, as part of Superintendent Dr. Title’s contract, Fairfield pays his fees and dues each year to belong to the Connecticut Association of Public School Superintendents (CAPSS).

It is our belief that these two groups are not independent. According to CABE’s website: “CABE provides legal assistance to boards of education and superintendents, as well as participating as amicus curiae in cases of statewide significance.” “CABE advocates on behalf of boards of education at the state and federal level before the legislature, Congress and state and federal agencies.” We reached out to CABE for guidance some time ago and were promptly told that they don’t talk to parents.

According to the Connecticut Association of Public School Superintendents’ (CAPSS) Executive Director, Dr. Cirasuolo, “This is the organization [CAPSS] that represents and serves all of the superintendents of schools in CT along with many members of the superintendents’ central office leadership teams.”

These two organizations are more in line with traditional unions that wholeheartedly support their members.  It appears as though their respective union style PR machines are geared up as, as they suggest, a decision could be rendered in this case that would adversely impact their membership at large.  Having read their statements, we take issue with their interpretations of state law and the matter at hand.  

Again, we have asked for and never received the CPM textbook pilot design, its periodic reports or a final report based on the goals and metrics laid out in the pilot’s design. We do not believe that the textbook’s implementation was part of a “legitimate process.”

“Report on Actual Math Grades”

Under the circumstances, we do not believe grades alone accurately reflect the knowledge base of the Algebra 1 students.  We intend to present a more complete analysis of the report submitted by Dr. Boice written by established professor(s) ofmathematics.

“State Hearing Process:  As part of their year-long effort to force their personal instructional methods upon our teaching staff, a group of five parents appealed to the CSDE regarding our process”

We began in October to formally address our concerns about Algebra 1.  We worked tirelessly to ask, and then demand, answers and transparency in a process that parsed words and avoided answers. In the end, we believe the process was not about what was in the best interests of the children but what was in the best interests of some elected officials and the administrators they refused to hold accountable, despite multiple levels of failure.   

The administration failed to adhere to the FBOE policy regarding periodic reports of planned pilots even though the contract for the CPM textbook was entered into in May of 2012.  The FBOE failed to act by never putting the change of textbook to a vote. When notified by parents of the change in textbook, the FBOE members said they did not have enough information to vote on the textbook.  Rather than demanding that the administration provide the necessary information or, alternatively properly vet the textbook, the FBOE failed to take any action regarding the textbook use.  Any questions on whether or not the book should have been put to a vote, could have easily been addressed by Commissioner Pryor.

Chairman Dwyer, had you attended the State Board of Education hearing held in Hartford on June 5, you would have heard conversations and questions by board members as to why it took so long for this matter to reach the Commissioner’s Office. 

You would have also heard Ms. Anastasio, the attorney assigned by Commissioner Pryor to investigate our complaint, discuss that she was able to resolve 99% of complaints by speaking with either the local superintendent and/or local board of education. She continued, that in this case she was not successful and, that in her ten year tenure, such a complaint had not risen to the level of a request for a formal inquiry. 

Finally, you would have heard board members speak to the need to shorten the length of time needed for parents to exhaust remedies with their local board of education and the Commissioner speak to a possible change in state policy.

The pilot has been completed.  The school year is over . . . One might think the CSDE and the FMA would conclude the issue is moot on a number of fronts.”

By your actions and inactions, you and your fellow board members have placed the education of 800 students in jeopardy. Your comments reflect a cavalier attitude that we do not find appropriate under the circumstances.

The FBOE failed to implement the educational interests of the state when, contrary to law, they allowed the use an unapproved, deficient algebra textbook.  The state has an interest in seeing that its citizens, Fairfield’s students, are educated and, in this case, taught algebra.  The issue is not moot for 800 students who used a deficient textbook for an entire school year. 

Algebra is a “gateway” subject that provides the foundation for geometry, trigonometry and calculus. Therefore, this year’s Algebra 1 students will pay a high price for your failure to remove the textbook in October.  For these 8th and 9th graders, that price will be paid for the next 3 or 4 years of high school and then into their college years, if remediation is not provided now.  

Our goals have not and will not change.  We are dedicated to educational excellence and the best interests of all Fairfield’s students.  We believe it is much easier to achieve these goals with transparency, accountability, and a healthy climate of inclusion.

Best Regards,

Fairfield Math Advocates


Get more local news delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for free Patch newsletters and alerts.

We’ve removed the ability to reply as we work to make improvements. Learn more here