FACT: In 1989, 23 percent of California State University students required remedial help in math. By the end of the nineties, that figure had jumped to 55 percent, coinsiding with the teaching of fuzzy math. This is alarming, when you realize only the top 30% of California high school graduates are admitted into those universities....

To understand where we are headed with Investigations and Connected Math, we need to understand where fuzzy math has been. By probing history, we hope to untangle the unusual events which catapulted the fuzzy math movement. But first, we need to point out something. At the heart of the current Math Wars was the publishing of the 1989 NCTM Standards, comprised of 50 simple but sometimes radical statements about how to teach math. The ultimate impact of the 1989 NCTM Standards for math, far exceeded the dreams of its framers. Their revolution became too successful. Our discovery starts with the NCTM itself....

If you wish to understand an organization, then you need to understand its leaders. And you would be surprised by the prevailing attitudes and mindset of the NCTM leaders. As NCTM president, John Dossey closely nurtured the creation of the provocative 1989 Math Standards. Later in the 1990s, Dossey became an advocate of another controversial move. Curiously, Dr. Dossey sought to change the public schools' national NAEP math test, so that correct answers would only get half credit if the answer lacked a clear explanation about how it was solved. But full credit would be given to wrong answers having a good explanation. Therefore, it was possible to score 100% on the test even if the student missed every single problem! This is completely absurd! Meanwhile, Steven Leinwand, a past NCTM board member (and board member of the National Science Foundation's math program), was another fuzzy advocate with very unusual views. He asserted that teaching math algorithms (like how to do long division, or add-and-carry, etc.) is "not only unnecessary, but counterproductive and downright dangerous." Why dangerous? Well, he explained that math is "annointing the few" who master the rules but "casting out the many." So in other words, kids who work hard and develop their math skills are a privileged group within society, which somehow makes them dangerous (Does this also apply to skillful student musicians?).

Yet another past president of the NCTM with unusual views is Jack Price. On a 1996 radio talk show in San Diego, he asserted, "What we have now is nostalgia [traditional] math. It's the mathematics we've always had, good for the most part for high-socioeconomic-status white males." Really? Then his statement actually means traditional math is overly difficult for girls. Indeed, he actually believes most girls are incapable of excelling in rigorous, skills-based math. But it isn't just girls, he also thinks minorities are unable to handle traditional math. We kindly disagree! With these kinds of views, is it any wonder these people have proceeded to dumb-down mathematics? Please note that we are not exaggerating. Mr. Price would agree with the above but use a defence that girls and minorities learn differently. Thus it's our observation that these three influential men appeared to let their own personal stereotypes leak into official NCTM policy as set forth by the 1989 Standards for math instruction. And that's a problem.

Once the 1989 NCTM Standards was finalized, it was imperative to find organizations with deep financial pockets, in order to keep the fuzzy math ideals alive. Therefore contacts were made with various universities and particularly with the National Science Foundation (NSF), a $5 billion quasi-federal agency, financed by your tax dollars. Apparently, the NSF shared with the NCTM, a deep concern regarding public school mathematics. That mutual concern soon exploded into an avalanche of financial support. It has been truly spectacular! So enthused over fuzzy math's ideals, the NSF sponsored no less than 13 math research projects, replete with several millions of dollars. Two projects are familar names, the Connected Mathematics Project (CMP) at Michigan State University, and Investigations at TERC, a research center in Massachusetts. Seemingly intoxicated, the NSF's education directorate began to evangelize fuzzy math, as a missionary extraordinaire. The NSF even sponsored groups to rewrite standardized math tests so that fuzzy math students would be favored! In fact the NSF explicitly stated the new math tests were targeted to be a "driving force for curriculum," change because of, "the pressures on the curriculum generated by this assessment, which will forward [the NSF's] national curriculum objectives." The rewriting of tests was directed from within the NSF by Janice Earle, who figured prominently later on. So after the NSF poured millions into developing fuzzy math, the movement badly needed one last key ingredient. They needed to find one influential state, adventurous enough to embrace the new fuzzy math experiment.

Anxious for ways to improve math proficiency, the State of California roundly endorsed the fuzzy math movement. Hoping for the best, they adopted the new, "1992 Mathematics Framework for California Public Schools," which largely governed the math curriculum. The new framework advocated issuing calculators in kindergarten, discouraged standardized testing and lowered basic math skills, because accurate answers were no longer required. In short, it mimicked the weak 1989 NCTM Standards. Predictably, opposition ignited especially from university professors, since fuzzy math seriously diluted mathematics. Later, sensing they were being largely ignored by their local school districts, the opposition created a web site called MathematicallyCorrect.com. From the Internet, they published several papers, which seriously questioned the fuzzy reforms. In response, the fuzzy math proponents counterattacked. They openly labeled the people of MathematicallyCorrect as a radical group of ultra-right, republican Christians. However their counterattack badly misfired. MathematicallyCorrect revealed their core constituency (excepting one) was life-long, liberal democrats, who also held high academic credentials. This misguided attack made the fuzzy math advocates appear to be grasping for a defense. But it did indeed yield insights into their absolute dedication.

It would be difficult to overstate the impact California's actions had on the entire nation. Realize, that roughly 18% of all textbooks are purchased by the state. Once California went fuzzy math, the nation's publishers of mathematical books scrambled to rewrite their texts in order to comply. Fad or not, the financial incentives were simply too great to resist. Then, of course the conversion to fuzzy math by the "Golden State" was later employed to prod other states into accepting the latest math revolution. Fuzzy math was gaining critical mass. But there were rumblings of discontent, because there were problems.

Achievement levels were falling. Imagine the surprise of Palo Alto parents when informed that math test scores had plummented nearly 30% by 1994. Although students did very well on a different test, a firestorm of controversy swirled around the schools. One stressed teacher abruptly took unpaid leave. In Torrence, parents organized and threw out two school board members. In San Diego, the school district cast aside the passionate pleas of highly educated parents. The result - the "mother-of-all" opposition websites, MathematicallyCorrect. From Davis to La Jolla, parents were organizing and networking, and getting results. In Escondido, the school district "caved-in," and reintroduced traditional math. By 1998, 70% of all Escondido kids were placed in traditional, skills-based math by their parents, clearly a resounding condemnation of fuzzy math's failures. Under pressure, the California Board of Education was reassessing the wisdom of the 1992 math framework itself. Fed-up parents were being heard.

Finally by 1997, steadily declining math test scores coupled with even more students who could not compute, pushed the State of California up against the "proverbial wall." The Regents over the California Public Schools, signaled they were seriously considering throwing out fuzzy math programs (like Investigations and Connected Mathematics) and returning to a more rigorous, skills-based math program. Then something incredible happened. As an enormous sponsor of the fuzzy math movement, the National Science Foundation (NSF) apparently felt threatened by California's actions. Consequently, the NSF jumped in and tried to intimidate people. Luther Williams, head of the NSF's education directorate, told the regents that if California abandoned fuzzy math, then the NSF might well terminate the $50 million they were providing to California schools. One of the regents, Janet Nicholas, responded that this was pure and simple bullying by a large, federal agency. However even in the face of threats, the California Regents voted unanimously, in December 1997, to reject the fuzzy math reforms. Connected Mathematics and its ilk were largely discredited and discarded. However, some school districts still retained Connected Mathematics and other programs similar to Investigations. Therefore the flames of controversy still burned, (of 1,056 California school districts, only 80 (roughly) are still using Connected Math, and Brown University lists only 3 districts using Investigations).

Energized and encouraged by the successes of the MathematicallyCorrect group, dozens of other anti-reform groups in many other states are challenging the soft foundations of the fuzzy math reforms, states such as New York, Texas, Maryland, Massachusetts, Virginia, Oregon, Arizona, Colorado, Wisconsin, Illinois, and Michigan (where ironically Connected Mathematics sprung from Michigan State University), and even in Utah.

Some may well wonder why, "if fuzzy math is so deficient, then why hasn't it already died?" The answer is really two-folded. The first part involves notable frustrations in teaching mathematics, specifically in how to actively engage all students from all socio-economic backgrounds (partly, the answer was to dumb-down). The second part was the extraordinary, single-mindedness of the National Science Foundation (NSF) in pouring millions into developing fuzzy math programs. While at the same time, the NSF sponsored still other groups to write positive reviews of the same math programs, and still others to train the nation's math teachers. As we reviewed earlier, the NSF is a $5 billion, quasi-federal government agency with considerable influence. As a result, the merging of these two interests has created a force that cash-strapped school districts can find difficult to resist, and may well dilute local control of schools.

Stung by unanimous defeat in California, the reform advocates sought out allies within the federal government's bureaucracy. And they found them. The Department of Education, under Secretary Richard Riley, was already establishing expert panels (mandated by congress), who were to evaluate and recommend curricula for mathematics and other fields. But unfortunately, the selection process was badly flawed.

Fifteen experts were assembled for the mathematics panel starting in 1996. But the fuzzy math advocates were overly represented. Interestingly, remember Steven Leinwand? He was selected as a co-chairman over the panel. But he was already active on the advisory boards for three fuzzy math programs that were now being evaluated by his panel. Two of the three, Connected Mathematics and Interactive Mathematics, were later ultimately judged to be "exemplary," (although, he stated he never voted on any of the three). But early on, the majority of the experts agreed that any programs rated highly as "exemplary" or "promising" had to conform to the weak 1989 NCTM Standards, which automatically excluded other successful programs. Furthermore at the time, Mr. Leinwand was currently on the NCTM board, and another panel member, Jack Price (remember him?), was a past president of the NCTM. Both denied that being NCTM officials was a factor in their voting. (Note: due to time constraints, Investigations was never submitted to the expert panel.)

If you're beginning to question the objectivity of the expert panel, be warned that things only got worse. The influential National Science Foundation placed two of its high-level members on the panel, Janice Earle and Luther Williams. Yes, the same Dr. Williams, who in 1997 bullied the California Regents while he served as a minor member of the panel but as a top NSF director. And yes the same Janice Earle who pushed to rewrite math tests to favor fuzzy math students. But again, both denied their NSF positions had any impact on the panel, and Williams resigned the panel in 1998.

As the work of the panel began, at a minimum they were supposed to evaluate each submitted program, by using two independently written impact reviews of each program. But that didn't happen. Dr. Harold Schoen actively co-directed the development of the "Core-Plus" fuzzy math program, with NSF money. Incredibly, he was also allowed to co-write one of the two impact reviews used by the expert panel. Later, Schoen admitted that if schools adopted his program, then he would receive financial compensation. Certainly, this was not an independent review. Moreover, Connected Mathematics, developed by Michigan State University with NSF money, did not fare any better. Instead of two impact reviews there was only one review submitted and used by the panel. The single review for Connected Mathematics was co-authored by Mark Hoover, who was actively employed by Michigan State University and attending classes there during the review process. Clearly, such conflicts of interests would normally raise BIG "red flags," but apparently not within the Department of Education during the Clinton Administration. The review process seemed to deteriorate into a meeting of friends reviewing each other's works and then using pseudo-scientific methods to bolster their claims. The process was inherently broken.

In spite of valid criticism, the panel of math experts forged on. They concluded their work for the education department and left Secretary Riley's people to publicize their premature findings. So in October 1999, the U.S. Department of Education announced their strong support for ten mathematics programs. Five were declared "exemplary" and five were declared "promising." All ten were fuzzy math programs, the same ones that were being discredited around the country. Connected Mathematics was considered exemplary. The announcement was a bombshell.

Fearing the effects of diluted mathematics upon the nation, some 200 scientists, mathematicians, and four Nobel winners took the unusual step of publishing an open letter in the "Washington Times" (11/18/1999). The critical letter took Education Secretary Riley (and his department) to task and urged him to publically withdraw all ten fuzzy math recommendations. The letter further alerted that school districts should "exercise caution." The department refused. The letter stirred up a flurry of reaction, triggering related articles in major newspapers like the New York and Los Angeles Times. The critics were howling.

At a later date, an expert on the math panel, James Rutherford, complained that they did not have sufficient time and resources to adequately evaluate all submitted programs. As a result, two of the fuzzy math programs were subjected to only one-half of the entire review process. One of those programs was Connected Mathematics. Yet another expert on the math panel, Manuel Berriozabal, complained the panel, "made some bad judgements....none of the programs we selected as 'promising' or 'exemplary' had any kind of long-term track record of achievement." Furthermore, Dr. Berriozabal continues to attack fuzzy math today. In an invited address to the Mathematical Association of America (San Diego 1/9/2002) he stressed: "We must condemn those educational programs and reforms that [substitute calculator, computer and Internet skills] for intellectual development. We must not stifle our children's educational development with fuzzy math programs that emphasize process over content. We must support programs which stress the acquisition of self-esteem through hard work, commitment, and achievement and oppose those that stress the acquisition of self-esteem as an end in itself. Indeed, today some students are being victimized by dangerous educational philosophies, which claim to make learning easy and fun."

Commenting on the activities of the expert panel, Dr. Thomas Loveless, now a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, stated, "This is not a conspiracy. What it shows is that the math-reform process is deeply flawed. The public has a right to expect government to be looking out for its interests.... It didn't do that."