UPDATE: Lakeridge Jr. High School has completely rejected Connected Math! Swelling numbers of upset parents stopped their kids from taking any fuzzy math, forcing Connected Math to be totally dropped in 2004-05. Cheers!

UPDATE: Great Connected Math News! We know of two Alpine Jr. High Schools that have completely thrown out Connected Mathematics (excepting one teacher) because it failed so badly!

UPDATE: Awhile ago, Alpine released the student math test scores on the SAT-9 (Stanford-9). Repeatedly, Alpine has used Foothill Elementary as its "flagship" school to showcase the promised benefits of Investigations and Connected Math. But in reality, the math test scores are falling badly...

Foothill's 5th graders in 2000 scored 67% in math. But, by 2002 Foothill's 5th graders had dropped to 49% in math, a plunge of 27%!

"Investigations and Connected Mathematics placed my daughter at risk. Frustrated and confused, the swelling tears in her eyes needed no further explanation. Whereas she had been a high-achieving student in traditional math, she was now uncharacteristically reduced to tears from Connected Math's confused teaching approach. There at the kitchen table, I resolved to get involved in the school district's fuzzy math wars...." L.D. Orem, Utah

Unfortunately, the above incident is quite true. Kids throughout the nation (and the Alpine School District, Utah) are reluctant participants in several experimental math programs such as "Connected Mathematics" and "Investigations in Number, Data and Space." If you're unfamiliar with these programs, then be aware that many districts intend to push universal adoption. Because the experimental programs are highly controversial approaches that have impacted the nation, you as a parent should be informed. Why? Because if an article in the Los Angeles Times is even partially correct, that success in math (especially middle school algebra) is the "single greatest predictor" of later college success, then your child may also be at risk.

To understand the genesis of Connected Mathematics (grades 6-8), Investigations (K-5), and other new math programs, we need to revisit the past. Frustrated that too many students were lacking competency in mathematics, the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) released in 1989, a recommendation for reform entitled, "Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics." The 1989 NCTM Standard was a vision of sweeping reform for math education.

Armed with the new reforms espoused by the 1989 NCTM Standards, teams of researchers were quickly funded (especially by the National Science Foundation) to produce new math programs, such as Investigations, Connected Mathematics, Math Trailblazers, Core-Plus, MathLand and many more. The programs were nothing less than stunning! Most openly advocated that learning how to add, subtract, multiply and divide was pointless -use a calculator; don't learn to compute anything. Furthermore, few if any formulas or properties are taught; the student must simply devise her own formulas through exhaustive, time-consuming experimentation (called discovery), which often yields deadend results. Moreover, the programs foster an ambiguous learning environment where getting accurate answers is devalued. It's the process of discovery that matters, not correct answers. These new experimental mathematics programs are commonly referred to as New New Math, Whole Math, Standards-based Math, and perhaps derisively, but accurately, as Fuzzy Math.

The new new math programs embraced the progressive learning concept called constructivism, defined as the mental processes of abstraction and reflection followed by learning. This means that students, with little assistance, are somehow to construct their own knowledge base of mathematical laws, formulas, and algorithms by self-teaching. The vague hope is that kids can do this partly by inventing their own math techniques through extensive hands-on exploration (discovery), but with little help or explanation from the teacher. Thus the teacher is relegated to the role of watching and co-exploring, but seldom instructing. Furthermore, to accommodate the kids inventing their own techniques, the mathematics have been necessarily "watered-down." Note this is not our conclusion. At Connected Mathematics' own website, their impact review (by the University of Washington) stated that Connected Math's level of algebra, "appear[s] to be almost two grade levels lower," than a traditional, skills-based textbook for the same grade. This is very disturbing because it means we are handicapping our own children. Consequently, constructivism, like so many other things in life when taken to an excessive extreme, becomes damaging and even destructive as the states of California, Texas, Massachusetts, New York and many more have already discovered.

Thus it is our hope that Kids Do Count (and TeachUtahKids.com) will foster much needed discussion. We feel the Alpine School District was amiss. Before implementing such a massive departure in teaching the critical area of mathematics, public input should have been widely cultivated. If we ignore the troubling experiences of other schools throughout the country, then we will likely stumble upon the same mistakes and discover for ourselves, "Why Johnny and Jane, Can't Do Math."