2009

• The Ligerbots: Executing on Teaching STEM
• Working toward a more sustainable Newton school budget

2008

• If We’re Going To Have An Override, What’s The Plan?
• We Need A Year To Improve Operations
• Capturing the middle ground
• Decision Making, Newton Style

2007

• Preparing our kids for the future: math, science & technology
• Support the FY08 NPS Math Initiative

The Ligerbots: Executing on Teaching STEM

Guest Commentary by Geoff Epstein
Newton TAB Wednesday, May 20^th, 2009

In the last 18 months a remarkable project in the Newton Public Schools went from a Newton parent's suggestion to successful implementation, fostering student involvement in the critical areas of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM).

It was the launch of our joint high school rookie robotics team, the Ligerbots (www.ligerbots.com) by a unique collaboration, comprising the community, school administration, teachers, 60 students from both high schools, Northeastern University Nutrons (www.nutrons.neu.edu), NEMO (www.firstnemo.org), the Newton Schools Foundation, NASA, and a number of local corporations: PTC, Boston Engineering, Raytheon and Textron.

It started with an email I received on November 12, 2007 just days after I was elected to the school committee on a math and science platform. The sender was Robin Saitz, a local parent, engineer, and executive at Needham-based PTC who introduced me to FIRST (For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology (www.usfirst.org) which was founded in 1989 by Dean Kamen, perhaps best known as the inventor of the Segway human transporter.

She pointed me to the "Amazing Things Happen" video about the FIRST Robotics competition including footage from the competition and testimonials from students and mentors: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyavvQEDYW0.

It was obvious that this was a great way to foster science, technology, engineering and math - teams of kids building robots and competing in robot competitions.

The ball started rolling. A contingent of Newton faculty and administrators visited the Boston Regional FIRST competition at the Agganis Arena at Boston University in March, 2008. A week later, Jeff Young gave the go ahead to field a Newton team at the FIRST Boston Regionals in 2009.

A team formed along lines which can best be described as a fledgling business, drawing on the talents and skills of students from both high schools, with business, marketing, build and dance/spirit groups.

In May, with a robot borrowed from the Northeastern Nutrons they competed in a robotics competition at Northeastern University. By late September, $10K in stipends, for the Newton staff mentoring the students, was squeezed out of the NPS budget, enabling corporate and government sponsors to donate a further $23K.

On January 3rd, the official FIRST kit of robot parts arrived and the team began its 6 week effort to design and build a robot to execute the competition mission (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnGfbGzEFrM).

After huge amounts of effort, the Ligerbots were ready for action and competed at the Boston Regional in March, 2009 where they won the Top Rookie Seed Award, coming in 9th out of 53 teams. They also earned the right to compete in the FIRST World Championship in Atlanta, Georgia in April by winning the Rookie All Star Award, an award given for exemplifying a young but strong partnership effort between the two Newton high schools and the community, as well as implementing the mission of FIRST to inspire students to learn more about science and technology.

The Boston success was repeated at the Hartford Regional, where they recused themselves from consideration for the Rookie All Star Award so other rookie teams could have a chance, and were instead awarded the Rookie Inspiration Award and Rookie Top Seed (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHobXYTwFKM).

With Atlanta in view and 30 kids, mentors and a robot to transport, funding became a $20K problem. The Newton administration kicked in $4K for the registration fee, PTC and Textron added $2K each and $12K came from private donors. Staff loaded up credit cards ahead of securing funds, much hair stood on end, but it all worked out.

In Atlanta, the realities of experimental machines intervened and although the Ligerbots machine stayed up and running throughout, one of their team partner robots went dead in two of four losses and they were knocked out.

The Ligerbots today are a bunch of kids totally transformed by this remarkable experience. Not only have they competed, but they have presented their team to CEOs, executives, professionals, and academics, as well as young kids. Half of them are freshmen, so we have built in durability and a strong base of experience. They will also nurture STEM in the elementary and middle schools as part of their mission, especially our growing parent-lead elementary and middle school FIRST Lego robotics teams.

The Newton science, technology and career tech staff and parents who spend endless hours to make this project successful are heros and deserve our highest praise.

For the upcoming 2010 competition, stipends have been lined up, sponsors are being sought again, but private, local donations are crucial. Donations can be made to support the Ligerbots at www.ligerbots.com.

And a final pitch.

Harry Sanders, a local parent, is looking for student help to build a mobile robotic system to enable Sidewalk Sam, a Newton resident, who is paralyzed from the waist down, to continue doing his sidewalk art (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidewalk_Sam). Interested students can contact Harry through me at geoff@geoffepstein.net.

Working toward a more sustainable Newton school budget

Guest Commentary by Geoff Epstein
Newton TAB Wednesday, April 22^nd, 2009

It's budget crunch time for Newton public schools.

Amid a myriad of other decisions to be made, the FY10 budget decision looms largest, as it's going to happen in days and it will move us towards stability or further away. Will we act now to protect our school system and invest in sustainable solutions? Are we making the best use of federal stimulus ARRA money for SPED? Can we rely on the Mayor's additional $1M?

The current adminstration budget solution is best understood as having 3 parts: the original $164.1M budget proposed by the Superintendent on March 5; $1.76M of federal stimulus money for SPED; $1M from the Mayor. The extra $2.76M appears to provide a lot of relief.

But danger lurks in this solution.

First, all of the stimulus money will be spent on recurring positions which will create a FY12 nightmare when the stimulus money runs out. Second, the Mayor's current $1M payback proposal has unusual complicating drawbacks. Third, state support seems to be weakening further with possible new cuts of $0.7M or more affecting this budget.

How can we arrive at a stable, sustainable solution? Here are some suggestions.

First the Mayor's $1M contains $215K to begin implementation of the Long Range Facilites Plan which was not a feature of the original budget and does not help solve any budget problems. A further $484K is actually not new money added into the budget, but simply a recognition that health insurance rates were set too high (as David Wilkinson's numbers attest). So that's not actually money being paid back to us. The remainder is patched together from various reserve funds and new growth.

So the Mayor's proposal is not a simple repayment of $1M owed NPS. It would be prudent to not accept this particular proposal but ask the Mayor to keep our $1M repayment in reserve to offset possible decreases in state support. Use it as a buffer to insulate us from that set of uncertainties. If over the next several months, the state cuts settle and some or all of the buffer is intact, we can apply it to non-recurring items.

But we can still take advantage of the recognition that we have been overestimating health insurance rates and immediately shift $484K out of health insurance to solve our budget problems.

So we have a $1M buffer against the state downside and we have $484K to spend.

From here on we shall be guided by the sound advice of the Citizens Advisory Group: optimize sustainability, act now, avoid short-term fixes. http://www.ci.newton.ma.us/Aldermen/Dockets%20&%20Reports/2009/04-14-09CAGPresentation.pdf

Plus we shall follow the government's principles for spending stimulus money, including: "spend funds quickly to save and create jobs; invest one-time ARAA money thoughtfully to minimize the funding cliff. These funds should be invested in ways which do not result in unsustainable continuing commitments after the funding expires." http://www.ed.gov/policy/gen/leg/recovery/factsheet/idea.html  

The cliff effect for Newton would be caused by the fact that we have $1.76M for FY10 and a further $1.76M for FY11, but then no further money for FY12 or beyond.

It seems prudent to stick with the part of the administration plan which spends $1.24M of the stimulus money to cover original (March 5) budget SPED spending including the innovative pilots to reduce elementary and high school out-of-district placements. That part seems to match well with the government’s principles and our drive for sustainability.

The suggestion offered here is to not spend the remaining stimulus money ($0.52M) on new recurring programs. Instead, spend it on onetime SPED technology ($210K) (originally paid for from the Mayor’s $1M) and on investments in restructuring SPED to lower cost and improve or maintain service so minimal money is spent on recurring positions. This begins to build cliff insurance.

At this point we have gotten $1.24M of relief in the general budget from shifting $1.24M of SPED costs to the federal stimulus pot, plus we have $484K from the lowered health insurance rates. That totals $1.724 which can be applied to restore all of the teacher cuts in the original March 5 budget ($1.28M including health care).

That leaves around $440K to take care of remaining items such per pupil allocation cuts ($60K), defibrillators ($27K), musical instruments ($30K), science equipment ($40K), half the lunch attendants ($180K), no bus fee increase ($60K), 2 middle school pilot digital classrooms ($66K), elementary bathrooms ($101K).

These items add up to $564K, so we're $124K short. But we have a $1M buffer.

This approach could be further refined by making the math initiative $120K less costly and more sustainable by more widespread use of the Underwood model, sharing our costs to provide transportation for private school students ($300K) and optimizing school building asset management.

I hope this set of suggestions helps steer our FY10 budget debate towards a more sustainable and stable solution.

If We're Going To Have An Override, What's The Plan?

Guest Commentary by Geoff Epstein
Newton TAB Wednesday, March 11^th, 2008

If Bill Clinton lived in Newton and was engaged in local politics, he'd have a sign in his office right now with an updated message: It's The Plan, Stupid!

Never has planning been more important for Newton. Good planning is a basic requirement for sound building projects, effective fiscal management, innovative educational systems and, not the least of all, successful elections.

This community expects the override package approved by the Board of Aldermen to reflect the best possible planning they can muster. Is it sound? Is it effective? Is it innovative? Is it a transparent, problem solving, compelling package which merits a solid YES vote?

If the plan behind the voted override looks out just one year, it will be judged short sighted.

If the plan does not invite community input on vital projects, an opportunity for partnership will have been lost.

If the plan has nothing new to offer, the community will sense no change of direction.

So if a plan looks out over the next several years, reaches out to the community and promises a new approach to our problems, it may well have a chance.

Translating this into tangible items:

1. We have to do better than a simple, operating override, which is a one year fix. That means we have to have a package with several components to provide a sound solution.
2. We should include in that package some debt exclusions to invite public input and relieve the operating budget of capital project stress. That includes Newton North High School (NNHS) as we would be wise to solve its financing now or it will come back to bite us in several years.
3. We have to tie off the NNHS project with a Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) that does not break the $200 million barrier. The GMP enables a debt exclusion with its associated constraint in cost -  a great attraction.
4. We have to seriously deal with the elementary school building projects now, for if we don't, the next chance to get a debt exclusion for them may well be 2-3 years from now. And that means a big delay.
5. We should put the fire stations under a debt exclusion as another means to relieve the operating budget of pressure

The really new feature here for Newton is the use of debt exclusions. There are those who frown on debt exclusions, even call them gimics, but they are a vital weapon in our fiscal armory. Debt exclusions naturally force a very logical and transparent solution for capital project financing. Do some planning, set a reasonable budget, explain it to the community and get their pocket book buy in at the start of the project. And despite what skeptics say, debt exclusions set a firm budget for the project which cannot be increased more than inflation without further voter approval.

So with reasonable estimates available for Angier, Cabot and the fire houses, they can be debated, costed and put under debt exclusion in the next several months. With a GMP for NNHS, a debt exclusion is also possible (this will take more nerve) and offers a substantial prize: the return of at least $16M to the operating budget.

And one final point. There are those who think that a menu of choices for an override vote will confuse the voters. These folks greatly underestimate the diverse talents of our local community members who, unless they don't get out much, are quite used to picking items from a menu. I'm completely sure that when they dine out at local restaurants, they don't just check the box: Food.

So there it is. Just one possible approach, which is closest to the Brangiolo override package. But maybe other better variants are possible.

The community is looking for a sound plan. The question is: Will the aldermen deliver?

We need a year to improve operations

Guest Commentary by Geoff Epstein
Newton TAB Wednesday, April 29^th, 2008

The operating override vote on May 20 is not a simple affair.

Is it a referendum on the Mayor and the Newton North project? Are we really short of cash and why is it a problem now? If we vote YES, will the money end up in the right place? If we vote YES, won't we end up in the same position a year from now? What's the plan for cleaning up this mess?

These are all good questions and like the rest of the community I have wrestled with them. After much consideration and discussion, I've come down on the YES side and I'd like to share my reasoning.

Probably the most important thing to recognize is that the financial landscape has changed substantially and we have to adapt rapidly or we are in for very difficult times.

Each year city income increases by 3-4% while city spending, with our current approaches, needs to increase by about 6-7% to maintain level services. That shortfall of 3-4% is the structural deficit folks talk about and it poses a real threat.

In the decades prior to 2000 we were shielded from this problem by student numbers dropping from 18,000 to 11,000 and a rise in state aid in the 90s. Post 2000, student numbers bottomed out and are now rising, while state aid topped out, dropped by $4 million in 2004 and has not fully recovered. The structural deficit drove our first override in 2002. Just as in that override, the money from this override is clearly designated for specific school and city services in the voted budgets. There is no visible leeway.

A clear fact about the override is that it does not solve the structural deficit problem. It buys us a year to solve it. We have to use that time to take apart, examine and improve our approach to pretty much everything in the city and school system.

Engaging in that effort will take resolve, ingenuity and a great deal of energy from everyone: elected officials, administrators, parents, teachers, staff, children, seniors, ... The entire community owns this problem and the best solution will come from a collaborative effort drawing the best from all of us.

The Citizens Advisory Group which is being formed now to officially attack the problem has to be totally effective. It's composition will advertise its intent. We have to have the best people serve on it and there must be no sacred cows. We in turn have to serve it by supporting its efforts and supplying it information, including every best idea we ever had on how to do things better in the city and the school system. We have to see its advice acted on and not blocked either by official neglect or entrenched special interests. Otherwise, we will indeed be in exactly the same position a year from now.

A complicating factor in the override debate is the Newton North project which has suffered from poor management and a grand lack of transparency. But I believe that a serious lesson has been learned and it is highly likely that future capital projects will be handled by debt exclusions which will force transparency and better management. Projects will be better planned and thoroughly reviewed because it will be the community which will decide if they move forward by voting the money, not the Board of Aldermen nor the Mayor. That will assure community buy in before large amounts of money are spent or committed.

While a solution for our capital project problems is in view, the structural deficit remains our biggest problem. If the Citizens Advisory Group effort fails, we’ll be in big trouble. So how can we best guarantee its success?

We can give our city and school system folks thinking time by not cutting their support and by not increasing their work loads.

If we want to really figure out how to improve every operation in the city, we need the thinking time of every person involved in those operations. We can say to them: "We’re going to cut staff and make your job more difficult right now" or we can say "We have a year to work with you to deliver better service at lower cost. Help us do that. Then if we fail, cuts will come."

The final comment to make is that we need to make real progress in better preparing our kids for the flattening world they face by ramping up math, science, engineering and technology. With the override money, tangible progress will be made in that effort.

So on May 20 it's a YES for me. It's based on a firm belief that we have the talent and the spirit to find great solutions by trying the investment approach before wielding the budget cutting axe.

Capturing the middle ground

Guest Commentary by Geoff Epstein and Steve Siegel
Newton TAB Wednesday, June 18^th, 2008

As the dust settles from the recent override campaign, it is clear that Newton has two choices for moving forward. Newton can accept the literal results of the override or, as we advocate here, Newton can seek a middle ground that might better reflect the voters' intentions and better serve our city.

We approach this task from opposite sides of the override election: Geoff campaigned for the YES side, and Steve campaigned equally for the NO side. We have found that in spite of the polarities of our votes, we are in agreement on most considerations. Especially, we agree that it's possible and desirable to act now to protect our schools and neighborhoods from significant damage through the judicious deployment of a tiny portion of our reserves. This deployment should occur while we explore every avenue to solve the financial and operational problems facing us. The Citizens Advisory Group is part of this effort and has our full support.

Central to the override debate was the question of how to address the funding gap, the so-called "structural deficit." The remedy proposed by the YES side was to bridge the gap with a tax increase, while the NO side argued for cuts and efficiencies and pointed to the more than $20 million of reserves available for use.

We are convinced that a majority of YES and NO voters are not on board with the complete set of cuts proposed before the override failure; rather, they would ask that the city do the best it can with all of the tools at its disposal.

We fear that if Newton cuts classroom teachers and police officers as much as projected, we will begin to visibly affect the quality of our schools and our neighborhoods and Newton's excellent reputation may well suffer. A compromised reputation may take years to repair and will likely damage another feature we hold dear - our high property values. Clearly, an excellent school system and safe neighborhoods are vital assets we need to protect. YES and NO voters agree on this.

We believe that the key to a solution is the judicious use of reserve funds. This is the middle ground between using none of our reserves and depleting them too much. It would curtail the worst damage to our assets while we work extremely hard to attack root causes of the structural deficit.

How much of Newton's reserve funds would we need to protect us from the worst damage to city assets? On the school side of the budget, we believe that around $550,000 - or just 3 percent of our current main reserve fund - would be sufficient to fund 11 elementary school teachers, significantly reducing the pressure of growing class sizes. On the city-side of the budget, a reasonable amount has not yet been determined by the Board of Aldermen, but it may well be similar in size. The remarkable fact is that these outlays from the city's reserve fund will be replaced four-five times over by the $4.8 million in capital project reimbursements that Newton will receive from the state in this next fiscal year. So our reserve fund will grow despite these outlays.

Surely such a minimal use of our reserve funds is reasonable and prudent. In fact, what are reserves for, if not to be wisely used in a time of fiscal crisis? It is in such times that we need temporary relief while we get our financial house in order.

One can hardly imagine that deploying this small portion of reserves would run counter to good practice in view of the benefit returned. However, our city leaders have expressed worry about a possible future impact on our bond rating. Although this seems unlikely, the reality is that the difference in interest we'd pay on bonds is a tenth of a percent or less if our rating falls from AAA to AA. While the highest bond rating is a point of pride for our city managers, the financial impact of a rating reduction on our borrowing costs would be extremely small. People come to Newton for the good schools and the safe neighborhoods. Few come for the AAA bond rating.

We should not sit pat as the wave of cuts triggered by the override failure bears down upon us. The judicious use of a small portion of reserves offers a reasonable way to mitigate the most obvious harm about to be done to our school system and city services.

This is our first chance to show that we have what it takes to rapidly adjust to the difficulties we face.

The voters in the override referendum didn't say "Do nothing." They said "Do better," and one way to do that is with some of our reserve funds. This is the middle ground. Let's capture it, together.

Decision Making, Newton Style

Guest Commentary by Geoff Epstein
Newton TAB Wednesday, July 2^th, 2008

Decisions, decisions, decisions.

Past decisions: Newton North High School project

Recent decisions: the Override, Budgets, Chartering, Long Range Facility Master Plan Option 3 for the schools

Upcoming decisions: Newton South Fields project.

Big 2009 decisions: Budgets, Contracts, Elections, Debt exclusions.

Decisions are the very essence of our City government. Some are made by the community, such as the recent Override decision. Some are made by the Board of Aldermen, such as the upcoming South Fields decision. Some are made by the School Committee, such as the recent Long Range Facilities Plan decision. Some are made by the Mayor.

Each decision has its own character. It may apply the brakes or set us rolling. It may affect a broad section of the community or not. It may involve a controversial matter or not.

Most important is that the decision-making process be transparent, complete, and fair.

Input from affected parties should be openly sought, received, acknowledged and folded in. All options should be carefully balanced and weighed. The reasoning employed should be clearly and publicly conveyed, so that the decision ultimately enjoys the right support.

So let's see how we are doing with some of the decisions cited above.

For the Newton North project, contention has been high and there is a ground swell of opinion that we have lessons to learn from how we made those decisions. Those decisions certainly failed some of the criteria.

For the Override decision, there was an extensive, civil, open debate with plenty of reliable information conveyed to the community through presentations, websites, newspaper coverage, blogs, email lists etc. Few would argue that we were not well informed in that case. And the decision had majority support. So that decision reasonably met the criteria.

The Newton North project is well past the point of no return, and we cannot redo its planning. The Override is also past and gone.

But two other decisions set us rolling.
The Long Range Facility Master Plan Option 3 just voted by the School Committee takes an initial small but significant step toward a capital project commitment that could affect the neighborhood character of our elementary schools and cost us more than $100 million, funded most likely with debt exclusions. And the Newton South Fields project, about to be voted on by the Board of Aldermen, would cost $5 million, use some precious capital reserves, commit the city to new debt in a time of financial difficulty and have possible adverse safety and environmental impacts.

Clearly both of these decisions are worth examining.

The Long Range Facility Master Plan Option 3 calls for 4 new replacement schools: (Angier, Zervas, Cabot and Ward) with renovations for many others. While this planning process, which has occupied 18 months and significant effort, has been reasonably transparent, it falls down substantially on completeness. It is missing any satisfying discussion of these key issues:

• New schools v. renovations.
• The possible role of a 16th new school.
• The ideal size for elementary schools.

There is a very strong feeling in the city that renovations should be very seriously considered in any capital planning for sound cost and environmental reasons, especially after the Newton North experience. While it is maintained, in a cover letter to the plan, that renovation is still a consideration for these schools, that is not what the plan lays out. There should be real concern that we are not placing sufficient emphasis on renovations from the start.

Increasing capacity by 260 students by replacing four schools with larger ones specifically rejects an alternate notion of adding just one new (16th) school that would increase capacity by around 400. It also allows the sizes of several elementary schools to float as high as 500, whereas the input from the community and the principals has supported a target of 360-400 for elementary school size.

So in this very important decision, we have major elements missing that should arouse a high degree of concern in the community.

Moving on to the Newton South Fields, one finds a similar lack of completeness. Where is the plan to address in detail the following issues on the turf components of the project?

• Possible adverse health and environmental effects, including toxic chemical exposure and runoff into the surrounding wetlands.
• Heat island effects, which may make the fields unusable during warmer weather.
• The true difference in maintenance of turf versus grass.
• The scale of expenditure in fiscal hard times.

It is clear that in both of these decisions, one recent and one upcoming, we have
significant problems with completess which could really impact our future.

We should adjust the Long Range Facility Master Plan and the Newton South Fields project before they roll too far.

Preparing our kids for the future: math, science & technology

Guest Commentary by Geoff Epstein
Newton TAB Wednesday, August 8^th, 2007

We live in a changing world. Most people are aware that global climate change is upon us and predictions made by a few 30 years ago are now being experienced by the many. Habitats are being impacted all over the globe.The Great Australian Barrier reef may be gone in 50 years. Disappearing Arctic ice may spell the end on this earth for polar bears. Many other species are under severe pressure and may not make it. Our expanding human population compounds the problems by consuming vital resources: water, land and energy. Analysis and action based on good science is imperative.

Together with these environmental challenges come economic challenges. China and India are expanding at such a rate that within 10 years, they will be drawing off a significant portion of the math, science, engineering and technology talent which used to come to the United States. We hear calls to action from all quarters:

"We as a nation must take immediate action to improve the quality of math and science teaching in every classroom in this country. If we delay, we put at risk our continued economic growth and future scientific discovery," (former Senator John Glenn, chairman of the National Commission on Mathematics & Science Teaching for the 21st Century)

“The generation of scientists and engineers who were motivated to go into science by the threat of Sputnik in 1957 and the inspiration of JFK are reaching their retirement years and are not being replaced in the numbers that they must be if an advanced economy like that of the United States is to remain at the head of the pack.” (The World Is Flat, Thomas Friedman)

If ever there was a time when science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) mattered, it is now. This is our opportunity to think globally and act locally.

So where do we stand and what can we do?

We have a small initiative in math, a planning effort in technology and no visible activity in science. Let’s examine them in that order.

In 2005, the debate about math ramped up significantly during the election campaign and lead to the realization that elementary school math needed to be strengthened. It took two years of sustained pressure to get a math initiative into the 2007-2008 NPS budget where $150,000 was allocated for 3 math specialists to reinforce math in 6 elementary schools, serving each half time and focussing on K-2. Compare this to the English Literacy program which has been very successful, with 15 specialists deployed in the elementary schools K-5, one per school. If we take Math Literacy as seriously as we do English Literacy, we need to expand the math initiative to supply one math specialist for each elementary school and that means $750,000 in the 2008-2009 budget.

We also need to address a structural math weakness in the middle schools where in the 7th grade around 40% of our children are streamed into regular math, rather than accelerated math, and following that stream naturally through high school never get to important subjects such as calculus. So these children will enter college at a significant disadvantage for any math based profession. A solution to this problem is to expand the math initiative to adjust math streaming in the middle schools so that, at the tender age of twelve, our children are not being biased away from STEM professions.

The planning effort in technology has been underway since last November when the Technology Advisory Committee (TAC) was formed by Shelley Chamberlain, our new Director of Instructional Technology. Thirty seven volunteers stepped forward to serve on TAC: skilled parent STEM professionals, teachers and administrators. Six sub-committees have researched and reported on computing models, emerging technologies, funding & partnerships, public relations, technology integration and universal design for learning. In September a report forged from this work will be presented to the School Committee and should serve as the basis for a series of technology initiatives which will have a far reaching effect on all of our children if they can be funded.

A major mystery is the absence of any visible planning effort in science, especially for the elementary schools where the coverage of basic science seems to be very uneven. Can we take advantage of the science professionals in the community and teacher enthusiasts to provide input to a science initiative? The TAC example suggests we can.

It is clear that we have a partial response to the STEM challenge but there is much to be done.  Advocacy is essential for progress to be made. We all need to engage: teachers, parents, school administration and the School Committee. For in the end, we have to find the financial resolve to guarantee that our kids get the education they need to prepare them for a very challenging future.

Support the FY08 NPS Math Initiative

Guest Commentary by Geoff Epstein
Newton TAB Wednesday, March 21^th, 2007

For the last four years, budget time in the Newton Public Schools (NPS) has been a season of defensive operations where we have tried to contain damage and keep the system functioning. This year offers much better prospects, as we have a real opportunity to move onto the offense. In FY08, not only can we maintain the service level of FY07 but we can make sound investments in four initiatives vital to the future of NPS.

I would like to focus here on one of these four important initiatives - the mathematics initiative. The intention is not to minimize the importance of the other three initiatives, but they must be addressed elsewhere.

Why is mathematics important?

We know that within a decade, the expanding economies of India, China and other countries will be attracting away personnel with math skills who used to automatically head for the US. If we prepare our kids well now for math, they will have plenty of exciting jobs waiting for them and as a nation we will be able to compete in the global economy, as we maintain our technology edge.

Why do we need a math initiative?

In the elementary schools, it is now established by a variety of measures, including MCAS scores and parental experience that while we have strength in english literacy, we have two principal weaknesses in math. The first is that we have a significant number of teachers who are less than comfortable with math and the second is that we have been struggling with the Everyday Math curriculum.

What is the math initiative?

The math initiative targets 6 elementary schools, in most need of math performance improvement, with 3 full time math coaches, focusing in the first year on K-2. Success should mean that after one year of this program, teachers’ math skills would be significantly improved and all of the students in the targeted classes should have received tangible benefits. Measurable progress after a year should lead to expansion of the program to the remaining schools and all of the grades in a measured manner commensurate with the math skills of the teachers. The initiative explicitly addresses teacher skills and support but we are assuming that proper adjustment will be made for the known weaknesses in Everyday Math.

What’s the deal with Everyday Math?

Everyday Math, which is used in the Newton Elementary Schools, is one of the Reform Math programs and is characterized by Reform Math critic, Wilfried Schmid, Dwight Parker Robinson Professor of Mathematics at Harvard University, as “the least objectionable among the reform programs. They do have a discussion of algorithms, but not one that is designed to get children proficient.”  

Reform Math came onto the stage in the 90s and was an organized effort to bring a real understanding of math into our kids lives, combating rote learning and boring math drills. While some progress was made, it is now widely recognized that the effort went  overboard. Too little emphasis was placed on basic computation and traditional algorithms (such as long division and the concept of borrowing in subtraction and carrying in addition).  “Spiralling back” to the same topics, rather than mastering them the first time out, encouraged less than the best efforts students could muster and early access to calculators hindered students acquisition of the basics.

In 2006, the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, a strong force behind the original reform movement, acknowledged the weaknesses of Reform Math with a return to basics in (‘Curriculum Focal Points for Prekindergarten through Grade 8 Mathematics’). Their current improved guidelines include the following:

Grade 2: Developing quick recall of addition facts and related subtraction facts and fluency with multidigit addition and subtraction
Grade 4: Developing quick recall of multiplication facts and related division facts and fluency with whole number multiplication
Grade 5:  Developing an understanding of and fluency with division of whole numbers

Curriculum Focal Points argues for the kinds of practices used in the countries where children score well on international math tests, such as Singapore and Japan. Wilfried Schmid comments that this  document “makes no bones about the fact that algorithms (such as long division and the concept of borrowing in subtraction) should be taught”. So it is clear that when teachers follow Everyday Math, some substantial adjustments have to be made. No doubt the stronger elementary school math teachers were already making those adjustments, but they need to become wide spread.

So help make sure this new math initiative survives! Call the School Committee! Call the Mayor! Let’s make sure this first step is taken to ensure our kids get the best math instruction with the best teachers and the best curriculum. And by the way, why are there 60 minutes in an hour and 24 hours in a day? Google it.