Many SCASD parents have a difficult time understanding what’s going on with math in the District because they see their kids struggling with “Investigations” and “Connected Math”, but at the same time District administrators are telling them that these are the “best programs”, that they are “research-based”, and that they supported by the National Science Foundation. Why have these programs been received so negatively in SCASD when the experts supposedly agree that they are superior?
Was the selection of the math programs used in SCASD based on an examination of research findings? Patricia Best’s response to a request submitted by PQME to SCASD under Pennsylvania’s Open Records law tells us that this was not the case. “No peer-reviewed studies were utilized,” and “Outside experts were not retained to provide information or materials,” according to Dr. Best’s response. On the SCASD website, there are links to “Research Articles” supporting the District’s curriculum choices. None of these links, however, leads to peer-reviewed research studies that support the use of “standards-based” programs. One of the links is to an online magazine article about a study that shows that kids do better in math when they are taught concepts as opposed to teaching them procedures alone. This is completely believable, but no one is arguing that math concepts should not be taught in SCASD.
In fairness to SCASD, it is very difficult to do rigorous research on the effectiveness of a math curriculum. Some of this work is beginning to be done with respect to “Investigations”, such as the U.S. Department of Education study that was mentioned in the petition and much discussed last spring. This large-scale study showed that Investigations was the worst of four programs tested in terms of student math achievement, significantly worse than the two most effective programs. The What Works Clearinghouse is the DoE’s one-stop-shopping for research on different educational programs, but go there and you’ll find that precious few studies on elementary school math meet their criteria for effective research.
There is peer-reviewed research that calls into question the theories behind “Investigations”, “Connected Math”, and similar programs. A review by Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006) (an article that was itself peer-reviewed) cites dozens of peer-reviewed studies suggesting that traditional direct instruction is more efficient and effective than the “constructivist” or “discovery learning” approaches that “Investigations” is based on.
