I assume that you have had the opportunity to read my letter of September 25 on this topic. I also should tell you that I have had the opportunity to review a video on the hearing you held on this matter on November 8.

Let me, therefore, state at the outset that I am in agreement with most of the recommendations made by that Task Force including, in particular, its first recommendation "that the State Superintendent of Public Instruction act immediately to establish clear and specific mathematics standards describing expectations of what students should know and be able to do at each grade level, from kindergarten through grade eight" and its later recommendation "requiring elementary school teachers to complete at least two high-quality undergraduate mathematics courses encompassing the spectrum of mathematical content strands to become credentialed. Examples of two such courses were specified in the 1985 California Mathematics Framework."

Remedying these deficiencies of the 1992 Mathematics Framework represents however, only a tiny part of what is needed to address the many fundamental flaws in that Framework. There was no discussion of these in the Report of the Mathematics Task Force nor in your hearing last month.

Let me give you just two examples of these additional serious deficiencies:

1. The 1992 California Mathematics Framework is not a Framework, devoting most of its many pages to teaching strategies rather than mathematical content. It focuses totally on the constructivist model, yet there is absolutely no experience with its broad and exclusive application to instruction.

Is it not ironic that a Framework can advocate exposure to an unproven teaching strategy for the entire California school system, yet a soap manufacturer never would commit itself to introduce soap to mass production prior to testing it on a sample of the population. Let me emphasize that I am not making the case here against using other teaching strategies, quite to the contrary, I am making the case here for a balanced application of various teaching strategies.

Unfortunately, the 1992 Mathematics Framework takes the view that lecturing by a teacher is something which should be avoided at all costs. I quote from page 41 of the Framework: "Teachers are facilitators of learning rather than imparters of information." Obviously they need to be both, not one at the expense of the other.

Statements such as these abound in the Framework and have made teachers almost become ashamed to give out information, that is, give a lecture. This has been one of the most disastrous consequences of the 1992 Mathematics Framework. If teachers are counseled against giving out information, who will?

Common sense would indicate that the prescription of one teaching strategy over another is wrong, but this is exactly what the 1992 California Mathematics Framework does. Different teachers excel in different teaching strategies. Every teacher should be allowed to use the strategy with which he or she feels most comfortable. To force a teacher to use a strategy clearly not appropriate for him or her can only negatively impact the learning of students and should, therefore, be strenuously avoided.

Let me quote a comment from a California high school mathematics teacher, which I just received last week: "As a teacher, not a facilitator, I am able to demonstrate the strength and beauty of mathematics, and to delineate the continuity which exists in the orderly development from one concept to the next more complicated concept. As a teacher, I am able to show the students within a single lesson how a concept in first-year Algebra allows us to develop and understand a concept in Geometry which in turn is vital to a concept in Trigonometry."

2. This brings me to my second example, which I consider the most important deficiency in the 1992 Mathematics Framework, namely to make clear what the goals of mathematics instruction are. They were very well stated in the opening paragraph of the 1985 Mathematics Framework.

"The inherent beauty and fascination of mathematics commend it as a subject that can be appreciated and enjoyed by all learners. The study of mathematics helps students to develop thinking skills, order their thoughts, develop logical arguments, and make valid inferences. Whether or not students will pursue a mathematics-based career, they should be encouraged throughout their years of schooling to develop a spirit of inquiry and an intellectual curiosity toward mathematics."

Unfortunately the 1992 Mathematics Framework hardly mentions the importance of conveying mathematics as an exciting discipline and one that can teach logical thinking. If teachers of mathematics consider it as their first priority to get students excited about mathematics, appreciate its beauty, get them motivated and actively involved in solving exciting problems, most of the battle would be won. Everything else we want our students to achieve in mathematics would then come naturally.

I could go on and list a great many additional deficiencies of the 1992 Mathematics Framework, for example, what it has to say about assessment, but time does not permit me to do so. Suffice it to say that when a public hearing was held on adoption of the 1992 Mathematics Framework, every one of the representatives from higher education--with only one exception--recommended against its adoption by the State Board of Education.

It is, therefore, no surprise that not a single member of a University of California Department of Mathematics was included on the Mathematics Task Force and none from Stanford or USC, etc. either. Can you imagine--to draw an analogy--if the education of future physicians in California is to be acted upon by a committee that no one is included from a medical school. In fairness, I should add that the Task Force included two mathematicians from the California State University System of whom one resigned from the Task Force in protest against the very weak recommendations it developed.

As you know, the Mathematics Task Force has as one of its co-chairmen Phil Daro who is identified in the 1992 Mathematics Framework as the one who "directed the final stages of that Framework's development." The Task Force also included among its members three of those who had prepared the 1992 Framework. You certainly would not expect such a group to be critical of what they had written.

Reference was made at your hearing last month to the letter by Professor Calvin Moore of UC Berkeley, supportive of the 1992 Mathematics Framework. No mention was made, however, of the fact that it was in the offices of Professor Moore that Phil Daro was located when the 1992 Framework was drafted and that Professor Moore took an active role in the final stages of preparation of that Framework. I can assure you that his views are not representative of California's university mathematicians at all. As a recent President of the Mathematical Association of America, I know many university mathematicians in California. I doubt that more than 5% of them share the views expressed by Professor Moore in that letter.

It was also not mentioned at your hearing last month that the Report of the Mathematics Task Force has met with a poor reception in the media, contrary to that of the Reading Task Force. The San Francisco Chronicle wrote: "While the math task force fell down on the job, the reading task force should be commended." The Sacramento Bee wrote: "The Mathematics Task Force's recommendations are weaker, both in tone and substance, than those on the teaching of reading .... That need not be fatal if state school superintendent Delaine Eastin, who created both the reading and math panels, puts some of the missing math muscle back into the reform effort--but a lot depends on how boldly she proceeds."

As you know, she has announced regarding mathematics that "she will work with the State Board of Education to develop a supplement to the California Mathematics Framework to clarify the role of computational skills and to offer suggestions on organizing a balanced mathematics program.

This clearly will not do the needed job. What is accomplished by writing a supplement to a fundamentally flawed document? It can't be done.

I have two recommendations to you:

1. I recommend that you take the same action on mathematics as Delaine Eastin has proposed for reading for which she has asked "the State Board of Education to revise the California English-Language Arts Framework to clarify the importance of basic skills instruction." In other words, I recommend a revision or perhaps even a complete rewriting of the 1992 California Mathematics Framework rather than issue a supplement.

2. I recommend that the new task force to be charged with your Board's directives be appointed in consultation with all affected constituencies, with an appropriate mix of expertise from all segments interested in and involved in mathematics education. This means, in particular, that its membership should not be dominated by those who prepared the 1992 California Mathematics Framework and those who constituted the Mathematics Task Force.

Ladies and gentlemen, you have a tremendous opportunity to turn around the quality of California mathematics education which is now at the bottom in this nation. What action you take here will decide whether or not the mathematical education of a large part of the present generation of California students is sacrificed. I hope you will not let this happen. It would be nothing short of a tremendous tragedy. I know it will take courage to take the actions I have recommended. As you know, I was recently sitting where you are now. If I were still sitting there this is the action I would take to return California Mathematics Education to the national leadership is has enjoyed previously.

I wish to thank you for the opportunity you have given me to address you.