8/2/99

Dear Mr. Brightman:

     Thank you for your letter of July 29, 1999 in response to my letter to Dr. Douglas Otto, Superintendent of PISD, July 27, 1999.

     On Friday, July 30, 1999, I called your office offering to discuss the answers to the questions posed by your letter by teleconference, with myself, attorney Tom Stack, yourself and Superintendent Otto all being part of this conference call. It was also my hope to have one of my representative parents be part of that conference call to discuss with you their concerns, in an attempt to avoid litigation. Unfortunately, although I wished that the conference call would take place at 3:00 o'clock that afternoon, I received a call from your secretary Catherine at 4:00 o'clock informing me that you had left the office [unrelated details omitted - USP Ed.] and that Superintendent Otto was also unavailable. [unrelated details omitted - USP Ed.] I still believe that a conference call of the above-mentioned individuals would hopefully be productive and help us to avoid federal litigation and all of its accompanying time and expense.

     Still in the hope that we will ultimately, and very soon, have a conference call to discuss this very serious matter, I wanted to provide you with this written response for Dr. Otto's and your consideration. The request for a traditional mathematics course that I discussed in my letter of July 27, is nothing new to this District. In fact, on June 15, hundreds of parents requested the recognition of choice concerning the math program on the middle school level. To date, these parents have been actively ignored and have been actively discouraged and precluded from discussing this matter with other parents at public meetings and even with the Board at Board meetings. I even recall the response I and attorney Tom Stack received by the Board when we made this very same presentation and request on behalf of hundreds of parents within PISD on June 15, 1999 when I was refused the opportunity to address questions and concerns posed by Mr. Bird that same evening and was told, along with all of the parents present, by Board President Mr. Muns that "As far as I'm concerned, we are going to move ahead to move along. And we've asked for the curriculum guides to review it and at this point we are moving forward. We will not have this item on the agenda again. Moving on." The Board refused to consider this matter or to move and take a vote to place this matter on a future agenda as an action item.

     At this point, let me take this opportunity to address answers to the questions posed by you in your letter, after which I will make some further general comments and observations. Obviously, I am going to make these comments for the purpose of hopefully bringing us closer to a resolution of this case that is acceptable to both sides. Obviously, if we are unable to come to a satisfactory resolution, I am more than happy to make these observations and assertions before a court and jury on behalf of my clients.

Question 1: Please identify the number of parents requesting this "traditional" math class and the schools in which this is requested.

Answer: Once again, this information has already been presented to the Board of Trustees during my and Tom Stack's presentation of June 15, 1999. Even before that presentation, parents within the District, some of whom we represent in this matter, attempted on numerous occasions to present these Petitions to the District, but were refused. Enclosed please find a copy of the document which Tom Stack presented to the Board of Trustees on June 15 titled "Petitions for Alternative Math Class 521 Petitions". The petitions have already been given to your client. Attached to the enclosed coversheet is an updated and current spreadsheet containing the names of the students, the school and grade which they attend, as well as the parents' names and addresses that have signed petitions specifically requesting of this District that an alternative traditional math course be provided in lieu of the Connected Math Program.

     Comparing the current spreadsheet enclosed with the one presented to the Board on June 15, 1999, you will note the change in the number of students whose parents signed these petitions in the following grades and campuses:

School	Today	June 15, 1999
Armstrong 6th:	49	44
Armstrong 7th:	34	31
Armstrong 8th	36	33
Bowman 6th	4	3
Carpenter 6th	14	13
Frankford 6th	24	23
Haggard 8th	23	22
Hendrick 7th	15	13
Renner 7th	26	22
Rice 6th	33	32
Robinson 6th	20	19
Schimelpfenig 7th	37	33
Wilson 6th	21	20
Wilson 7th	14	13
Wilson 8th	10	6

     These petitions did not request the dismantling, rejection or removal of the Connected Math Program from the District, simply the providing of an alternative course pursuant to Texas law.

Question 2: Describe the proposed "traditional" math class.

Answer: As detailed in the more than 520 petitions (now 556), which have been presented to this District, parents have requested the addition of a traditional, conventional math class that uses the 100% conforming Glencoe Applications and Connections and Glencoe Pre-Algebra textbooks. These books are a logical pre-requisites to the Glencoe Algebra I book which is already in place in this District. Certainly, as a compromise, my clients, and I would imagine the other 556 parents, would be willing to accept the old textbooks, which are in ample supply in the District. While these old textbooks may not be "TEKS compliant", it is not a pre-requisite in the State of Texas that the only textbooks that are used by a district are TEKS compliant. I am sure everyone is aware of that. The parents would be willing to accept these old textbooks which present the opportunity for drill and practice as well as giving specific formulas and algorithms.

     Further, this traditional math class would be taught by existing math teachers within the District with either the old textbooks, with necessary supplementation for TEKS compliance (similar to what you are already having to do with the Connected Math Program since the Connected Math textbooks failed to address an average of 47.5% of TEKS elements at each individual grade level), or with the 100% conforming Glencoe textbooks as identified above.

Question 3: What is the proposed curriculum, if any, of the "traditional" math class.

Answer: Once again, the District should well know the answer to this question, but the proposed curriculum of this alternative math class is well defined in the Glencoe books noted above, which are 100% conforming to the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills. In fact, it is my understanding that these textbooks are actually keyed to the TEKS. There will therefore be no need for a curriculum guide to teach out of these texts. In fact, I will note that under the current Connected Math Program, there are gaps in content which must be compensated by pulling in other resources. I also understand that an extensive supplemental curriculum has had to be drawn up by District personnel at what I would expect to be significant cost, in order for the District to be compliant with TEKS. In addition, the Connected Math Program has required the purchase of manipulatives and other resources to be properly implemented. With Glencoe books in this alternative math class, there is a complete program in and of itself, within said textbooks, and no additional financial resources need to be expended as under the current program, in order for the books to be TEKS compliant.

Question 4: How many students are necessary for a campus to provide this "traditional" math class.

Answer: Chapter 26 of the Texas Education Code clearly provides that a parent is entitled to request the addition of a specific academic class, with the expectation that that request will not be unreasonably denied, if sufficient interest is shown in the addition of that class to make it economically practicable to offer the class. This subsection of §26.003 has never been litigated and/or interpreted by a Texas court, and therefore there is no clear definition as recognized by the courts as to what constitutes "sufficient interest" or, for that matter, "economically practical". However, the Commissioner of Education in a letter to Board Trustee Jane Hughes of the Northside Independent School District, dated April 26, 1996, a copy of which attorney Tom Stack presented to the Board, does address the TEA's belief of what constitutes "sufficient interest". For your convenience, I have enclosed a copy of that letter along with Representative Hochberg's letter of April 18, 1996, for your reference.

     As you can see, Commissioner Moses, citing §28.003, used 22 as the number to judge whether there has been sufficient interest shown for the addition of a specific academic class. In the instant case, I believe that 19 students from a particular grade that have a parent that indicates an interest in the addition of a specific academic class, would indicate sufficient interest shown. This is especially true in this case when you couple that with the fact that a vast majority of these parents are even willing to buy their own textbooks in order for their child to be given the opportunity to attend an alternative math course. If this matter goes to court, our argument before the court would be that the request of the parents of 19 or more students indicates and constitutes sufficient interest shown.

     Based on this definition, the only classes, at this point, that would have the right under Chapter 26 to make a request for a specific academic class, a traditional math class, would be as follows:

Armstrong 6th, 7th and 8th grades;
Frankford 6th and 7th grades;
Haggard 7th and 8th grades;
Hendrick 8th grade;
Renner 7th grade;
Rice 6th and 7th grades;
Robinson 6th grade
Schimelpfenig 6th and 7th grades;
Wilson 6th grade

     That is only 15 classes out of 3 grade levels at 11 middle schools.

Question 5: Define in which ways the "traditional" math class is different from the math class already offered by PISD.

Answer: The present Connected Math Program and a traditional math class and curriculum are very different and distinct classes that offer material which is substantially different from each other. For instance, the materials of Connected Math call for and require an altered means of delivering said material, while a traditional math program uses drill and practice and is a direct instruction course. The Connected Math Program is a group discovery course. It is also my understanding that throughout the debate on the Connected Math Program PISD officials, including Ms. Marilyn Brooks and Mr. Jim Wohlgehagen, have repeatedly pointed to the altered form of teaching delivery that is contained in the Connected Math Program when comparing it to the traditional materials. They have repeatedly stated that a child discovers theories and forms through the exploration of group and partner explorations under the Connected Math Program, which is substantially different from the materials and learning techniques of a traditional math class.

     Certainly there a distinct different in the method of delivery of the materials between Connected Math and traditional math, but there is also a substantial difference in the content in the offered material between the programs. Because of the time consuming nature of Connected Math, it is an impossible task to master fundamental math skills. Even the creators of the Connected Math Program, on their own website, have indicated that due to the time consuming nature of Connected Math, less time is spent on computation and memorization of formulas. They go on to admit that "Because the curriculum does not emphasize arithmetic computations done by hand, some CMP students may not do as well on parts of standardized tests assessing computational skills as students in classes that spend most of their time on practicing such skills." They also refer to the Connected Math Program as a "new curriculum" which sounds to me to be material that is substantially different from 'old curriculum', or a traditional math approach.

     Taking a look at those materials which make up the Texas Statewide Systemic Initiative Grant with the National Science Foundation, I note in TSSI's proposal a recognition that the traditional middle school curriculum is under fire and that middle school curriculum (course materials) such as the Connected Math Program, offers an alternative to the traditional math curriculum. Further evidence of substantial difference is the fact that the District's math teachers have had to participate in extensive training by TSSI, the National Science Foundation, and/or the District, over a number of days, perhaps even weeks, on the Connected Math Program curriculum and material. Certainly, if two sets of material were substantially the same or similar, such training would not be necessary. Rather, both courses offer material that is substantially different from the other and thus Chapter 26 is applicable.

Question 6: Please identify any state requirements that are not provided by the PISD approved math class.

Answer: The District's own Blue Ribbon Report of January 25, 1999, evidences that the Connected Math Curriculum does not address 43.3 % of TEKS, failing to meet minimum standards set by the State. The TEKS require that a minimum of certain traditional math skills are mastered at each grade level, and yet the Connected Math Program, even by its own admissions and literature, recognize that they spend little to no time on computation and memorization of formulas, which is a large part of the traditional math program and which is a integral part of math skills. It is my understanding that in the past years of your Connected Math Pilot Program that a full year's worth of Connected Math Program units have never been completed, thus leaving many children deficient in many math skills.

     In the past, while the Connected Math Program was a pilot program and still under debate as to whether it would be accepted by the District as its curriculum for middle schools, certainly there was debate and discussion about doing away with the Connected Math Program and keeping a more traditional math curriculum. However, the facts are that your District has accepted the Connected Math Program and has implemented it as the math program for your middle schools. The parents which I represent know this and are not seeking the dismantling or removal of the Connected Math Program. Rather, they are seeking that their rights under Chapter 26 of the Texas Education Code be recognized and honored, and the addition of a specific academic class, a traditional math class of direct instruction be offered as an alternative to the Connected Math Program.

Question 7: Please define what constitutes your definition of "economically practical".

Answer: As I indicated above, there is no recorded holding by a Texas court defining "economically practical" under this section of the Texas Education Code. Certainly, if it is necessary, we will have a federal court make that determination for us in a suit filed by the Texas Justice Foundation on behalf of our clients.

     However, for purposes of discussion and towards a resolution of this matter short of federal litigation, I believe there would be no economic burden placed upon this District, if the District either used the existing textbooks that are still in your possession (that you have used in past years), or if you allow the parents to purchase, as they have offered, the books as indicated on their Petitions, the Glencoe textbooks noted earlier. In fact, a large part, if not all, of this "economically practical" debate could have been avoided by the District long ago if you had been accommodating to the parents which requested the honoring of their rights under Chapter 26 and had provided them the alternative class they now seek. No additional teachers would have to be hired as you would simply re-assign a current Connected Math teacher to teach the traditional math, a math curriculum which they should already be familiar. We believe teachers would volunteer for this. In addition, the textbooks are already in your possession, or the parents have already agreed to purchase the Glencoe textbooks which they desire.

Question 8: How many additional teachers are expected to be hired to offer the proposed class.

Answer: No additional teachers would have to be hired to teach the additional course. If you have enough parents of students at a campus, for a particular grade, who show sufficient interest in the addition of that class, you simply re-assign a current teacher who would already be teaching those children in a Connected Math classroom, to teach them the traditional alternative math class. Most, if not all, teachers know how to teach traditional, conventional math. We believe that every teacher you have in your District is capable of teaching from traditional math material, as we expect that all of your teachers are trained professionals. In fact, I am all the more confident that these teachers are able to teach a traditional, conventional math course since your District has had to spend many hours, over many days, retraining these teachers from a traditional math paradigm to the Connected Math Program.

Question 9: From what source do you propose to obtain funding for the class.

Answer: The classrooms in which to teach children traditional math already exist. Teachers to teach these children traditional math already exist. The old textbooks your District has used in the past to teach these children traditional math already exist and are already in your possession. The Glencoe textbooks which the parents who have signed over 550 petitions to your District, would be purchased by the parents and thus would not be a financial burden on the District. In fact, for those few parents who have signed petitions but indicated that they are not willing to purchase the Glencoe textbooks, the group of parents known as MathChoice have already stated that they would attempt to raise funds to cover the cost of those books for those parents and their children. In a nutshell, there should be no cost to implement this alternative class.

     It is also my understanding that it has been stated verbally and in writing, even in public meetings by this District, that the Connected Math Program would cost "zero" to implement. However, we are now aware that costs for manipulatives for the new schools teaching Connected Math will be well over $1000 per school, even though the Connected Math Program is not going to be fully implemented at the 7th and 8th grade levels next year at these new campuses! This would appear to indicate that the costs will grow over the next two years. The facts would also indicate that the cost factor actually appears to weight totally against the Connected Math Program as compared to the offering of a traditional math curriculum.

Question 10: From what source do you propose to obtain funding for textbooks for the class.

Answer: See response to Question 9 above.

     As a general observation, I have had an opportunity to review the District's Blue Ribbon Report of January 25, 1999, written by Mr. Douglas Myers, Chairman of the Connected Math Program Committee. In that report, Mr. Myers poses a number of serious concerns and questions to the District. I was wondering whether these questions and concerns have ever been answered by the District.

     In particular, Mr. Myers noted the extent to which the Connected Math materials had to be supplemented and questioned the financial viability of doing so.

     He also pointed to the fact that a parent's ability to coach and help with homework may be greatly diminished and that this could be a significant issue for some families. Has this item been addressed and answered by the District? I can tell you, that is very much a significant issue for the parents I represent and the parents that would be class members of the class action in this litigation. Mr. Myers also notes that much more after school tutoring and support may be necessary. Once again, what has the District done to address this issue and provide an answer to alleviate the fears and concerns of the parents within PISD? Also, I can tell you that we have spoken with parents who have not only withdrawn their children from PISD as a result of this Connected Math Program, but also parents who have had to hire private tutors to assist their children, enrolled in Connected Math, in understanding math.

     I also found it very interesting that Mr. Myers indicated in the Report that his committee did not have the opportunity to review any other competing textbooks, they only reviewed the Connected Math Program. Why was that? I wonder whether their Report would have been any different if they had had the opportunity to also review the strengths and weaknesses of a traditional, conventional, direct instruction course and materials using Glencoe, for instance. Unfortunately, we may never know.

     Finally, I want to address some observations from the transcribed testimony of Mr. Keith Sockwell before the House Education Committee in Austin on March 30, 1999. As I sure you are aware, Mr. Sockwell had the opportunity to address that Committee concerning the situation involving Plano ISD and the concern of parents about the way they were being treated by the District when it came to their voiced concerns about the math curriculum of their children.

     First of all, Representative Sadler, when first addressing Mr. Sockwell, recognized that the debate surrounding the Connected Math textbooks meeting only 60% of the TEKS, and that the parents who were requesting an alternative math course fit into the context of Chapter 26 and Parental Rights.

     Second, concerning the issue of "economic feasibility", let me quote for you an excerpt of that Committee hearing:

Representative Sadler: "About 45,000, but you had 250 parents, well parents of 250 kids, and you were adopting a new text book, and they said, 'No, we don't want that . . . we want the old text book . . . the traditional text book. Can it economically, is it feasible to put together a classroom or series of classes for those 250 students that want to use the prior textbook? Can it be done?"

Sockwell: "If, if there were 250, I'm sure that it, feasib--, well . . . it could be done."

     In the present case, we do not have parents of 250 students requesting the addition of a specific academic class, but rather parents of over 550 students!

     Allow me provide you with another excerpt from that testimony:

Sadler: Well could you just give the option to parents and see what kind of interest prior to school there was and if there were three hundred---wait a minute, let's please don't have an outburst. We're trying to . . . and I understand you're, you're anxious, but we're trying to understand how this section interplays with decisions that are made in a very practical fashion. Is it possible to restructure? I guess given the number of students you could . . . and actually offer different textbooks in district that size? Have certain teachers assigned to teaching one way, one textbook. [Pause] Is that feasible or not?

Sockwell: You know, I . . .

Sadler: Is it an aggravation, I don't want to know the answer to that.

Sockwell: And I, you know, I wasn't going to say it was an aggravation. I, I think that you could certainly look at this. Is it feasible, you would have to say, "Yes". It probably is feasible, you could do it. Is it the best? I don't know. You know I, I think we question.

Grusendorf: The question really though is: do these parents have that right? And I think it was some of our intent when we passed this statute that the parents would have this right. And it says, "shall not be unreasonably denied." So the question is "do these parents have that right--even though you may disagree with them?

Sockwell: If, If that is certainly the interpretation, you know if we have not interpreted that--that properly. . . certainly they may have that right.

     I believe that it is clear, and if necessary we will make this argument to a court of law and before a jury, that Chapter 26 and the right of parents to direct the educational upbringing of their children, is clearly an issue in this case. I believe that the letter of the law and equity both side with the parents in this issue. The parents that I represent, and many of the parents that would make up the class in a class action, have discussed these and related issues concerning the Connected Math Program with this District for many, many months. Unfortunately, I think that too often their concerns and voices were either downplayed or ignored by this District. Now is the time for the District to stand up and do the right thing for these parents and their children. We are giving you this opportunity to do that before litigation is filed.

     Gentlemen, I appreciate your kind and serious attention to this matter. I also look forward to hearing from you soon.

Very truly yours,

/s/

Allan E. Parker, Jr.

President, Texas Justice Foundation