1.      What process did the district go through prior to adoption of the district math curriculum (parent information, board meetings, etc. & when did this process commence)?

2.      Upon what information & research did the district base its selection of curriculum and what other curriculum did it review?

3.      How did funding affect the decision as compared to a considered evaluation of different options?

4.      What was the math background of the people involved in the curricula evaluation and selection?  Who were the people involved?

5.      What is the specific history of implementation of TERC and CMP at each school: i.e., year begun, grades and staff initially involved and subsequent history to the present?

6.      What evaluations of student performance with TERC and CMP have been done to date?  What evidence was used in those evaluations?  Why?

7.      Does the district have any comparative data of student achievement in the district between similar populations, contrasting performance of those receiving math instruction in TERC and those receiving a more traditional, classical training in mathematics?

8.      What measures, criteria, does the district use to evaluate program success (e.g., numbers of booklets completed in each middle school year)?

9.      How available is the district math office to the schools if/when schools encounter difficulty?  What problems are most often encountered?

10.     What is the district’s response to the major criticisms held by mathematicians and scientists regarding the NCTM standards and the various curricula based on them?  What is the district office’s response to commentary and evaluation from the MAA and AMS of the NCTM standards, Principles, Standards for School Mathematics?

11.     Since the curriculum does not align with the NYC-BOE expectations by grade how does the district propose to address the gaps?

12.  Some of us parents have had the experience of being encouraged to teach our children various things not directly addressed by the curriculum: e.g., the multiplication tables or other math facts.  If certain skills are deemed important to learn, how can the district have a curriculum that does not address such skills and in effect relies upon supplementation by parents?  How is this justified in a district in which there is such a range in parental involvement across the schools that this curriculum would appear to be privileging the already privileged and penalizing those who are in already less supported schools?

13.  Given these curricula are highly dependent on manipulatives, regular and graphic calculators, computers, and other equipment, is the district funding the purchase of such things for each student as necessary?  If not, is this another aspect in which this curriculum is in effect privileging the already privileged: e.g., those students with parents who can afford computers and graphic calculators?  If the purchase of all of this equipment is fully funded how is such funding justified given the lack of funding for such things as libraries?

14.  Does the district have any data on the level of supplementation by parents in CSD#2?  If not, why not?

15.  What is the purpose of the District Math Office?