Dear Editor:
I hope the Fairfield’s Board of Education will instruct the Superintendent to stop using the unapproved Algebra 1 textbook when they meet at the Jan. 15 BOE meeting.
Karen Parks, Deputy Superintendent, has admitted that indeed there has been a textbook change. CT General Statute 10-229 states, “No board of education shall change any textbooks used in the public schools except by a two-thirds vote of all the members of the board.” BOE policy references the same statute. Why did the textbook change without BOE approval? Why does the board continue to allow use of the book?
Karen Parks also admitted, “The use of the CPM textbook is an area in which we made mistakes….We’d like to undo the error… we can’t fix it.” Why not?
The Board of Ed did not know there was a new book in the district and the administration has said they only paid for professional development and book trial. Yet the book’s publisher states, “CPM underwrites the cost of providing instruction in the use of CPM materials…districts are responsible to purchase teacher editions…” What really was purchased and why without board knowledge, or proper approval? What else is being spent without board knowledge, or proper approval? I hope the Board of Finance is paying attention in advance of the upcoming education budget discussions.
Moreover, the publisher’s website states, “CPM materials require significant change in the everyday work of the classroom.” Can we trust that our book changed in order to meet the instructional model as the administration suggests, or has the instructional model changed because the CPM materials that we purchased require it?
I have asked Dr. Boice to allow my son opt out of the “pilot.” I have not received an answer. I also asked Dr. Rasmussen, after the Jan. 3 math night, how to opt out. He responded that it’s not possible, and that we are actually “vetting” the book. I wish the administration would stop playing semantics. Initially there was no mention of a new book, just a new “instructional model,” then we were “piloting,” and now we are” vetting.” Administration can choose to call it what they want, but “a rose is a rose is a rose.” And a textbook used in every single algebra class in the district is one that has been adopted.
I am one of the citizens and taxpayers that the board represents. I have followed BOE policy by waiting my turn at the BOE meeting to speak at 11 p.m. for my maximum two minutes. I have adhered to BOE policies. Why won’t the Board of Education require the administration do the same with respect to BOE policies and applicable state laws?
Susie Byrne
At any rate, argue how CPM got there until you are blue in the face, but at all costs do not force another change just because of red tape. After all, their is a goal that CPM can help achieve, provided there are quality instructors, adequately prepared students, appropriate technology, and caring parents. I would rather see a district argue and debate the preparedness of their students than the choice of textbook program.
Did you actually read the entire article you have sited? "The Common Core standards seem to presume that even very young students can, and should, learn to make sophisticated leaps in reasoning, like little children dressing in their parents' clothes. " "I hope, for instance, that teachers will still be allowed to introduce the standard method for addition and subtraction in second grade rather than waiting until fourth." "After all, where the Common Core goes, textbook publishers are probably not too far behind." And CPM is one of those textbooks.