More Connected Math Woes, This Time in Pennsylvania

The Riverview School District enrolls about 1,100 k-12 students in Oakmont and Verona Boroughs, Pennsylvania.

From an online news blog, the Plum-Oakmont Patch

The Riverview School Board meeting on Monday had the largest attendance in years, according to school board members. Parents filled the high school library, and in a citizen comment session that lasted two hours, they discussed their concerns about the middle school Connected Mathematics 2 program.

The parents had a lot of familiar things to say:

Among the parents' concerns were the group work involved, the participation aspect of the class, the frequency of testing and the combination of students at different math levels in the same classroom.

Parent Joseph Knapp said his son struggled in the class because of the way it was structured.

"I, unfortunately, found the Connected Math program to be an unorthodox way of teaching students," he said. "It seemed like the students taught themselves, in theory.

"They have groups where they figure out problems and are encouraged to come up with the ideas on their own. I thought that was ridiculous. In sixth and seventh grades, you need instruction."

Parent Tim Lazor said his son usually did very well in math class until he took the class this year. Lazor said he doesn't think the program has the support of the students or the teachers who are teaching it.

"I don't think the teachers bought into this," he said. "That's a critical component.

Eight years to find a new curriculum?

Superintendent Charles Erdeljac said district officials had been looking for a way to improve the math curriculum for about eight years. He said to participate in the Math and Science Partnership of Southwest Pennsylvania, the district would have to implement Connected Math 2 or MathScape—the only two programs with the National Science Foundation's "stamp of approval."

Scores declined?

When asked by parents about Pennsylvania System of School Assessment Scores, principal Jay Moser said the scores of last school year's seventh graders dropped by 9 percent, according to primary figures from the state department of education.

Hmmn I guess math is different in small-town Pennsylvania.

Erdeljac said district officials are going to continue to monitor the program and data associated with it to ensure it is a good fit for students.

"On the one hand, we have to have fidelity to the program as it's intended to be taught, but on the other hand, we're Riverview," he said. "We need to find out how this program can be most successful here at Riverview…we're still in the process of making this program Riverview's Connected Math program."

Can I Record School Board Meetings in New York State?

I'd like to express my gratitude at the opportunity to post here on KTM - as a long-time reader of this site, I'm honored.

So, let's get down to business and address a question that pops up so often that I've decided to cross-post the answer on my own site.

Can an interested party record a school board or school committee meeting in New York State? [NJ and PA are touched upon as well.]

The short answer: Absolutely, provided that the recording process and its devices don't disrupt the proceedings.

Remember, a public meeting constitutes quorum gathering to discuss issues. This means that you're free to record regular school board meetings, budget hearings, committee meetings, etc. - any time there's quorum/over half the official body in attendance with the intent to conduct public business, go ahead.

But school boards aren't always into public records and accountability. When your New York State school district denies that you're allowed to tape a meeting, cite the following precedents:

• Mitchell v. Board of Education of Garden City UFSD, 113 A.D.2d 924 (2nd Dept. 1985). This established that unobtrusive, handheld tape recording devices were acceptable.


• People v. Ystueta, 99 Misc.2d 1105 (District Court, Suffolk County, 1979). Established that prohibiting recording devices violated public policy.


• NYS Dept. of State Committee on Open Government OML-AO-3037, June 18, 1999. Backs up People v. Ystueta.


• Feldman v. Town of Bethel, 106 A.D.2d 695 (3rd Dep't 1984). Use of recording device may not cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or disturb the meeting.

Then there's Csorny, et al. v. Shoreham-Wading River Central School District, et al. (Index No. 31583/00) which not only upholds the above rulings, but cites supporting precedent in both Pennsylvania and New Jersey:

The overwhelming weight of authority from other states likewise supports our holding herein. In Hain v Board of Directors of Reading School Dist. (163 Pa Commw 479, 641 A2d 661), the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania struck a school board rule prohibiting the videotape recording of public meetings as violative of Pennsylvania's Sunshine Act. In Maurice River Tp. Bd. of Educ. v Maurice River Tp. Teachers Assn. (193 NJ Super 488, 475 A2d 59, affg 455 A2d 563), the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, similarly held that a school board could not enact a blanket prohibition against videotaping of public meetings, as such a rule violated New Jersey's Open Public Meetings Act (NJSA 10:4-6 et seq; see also Sudol v Borough of North Arlington, 137 NJ Super 149, 348 A2d 216 [NJ Super]).

There ya go, kids. Record at will.

And when the Board members freak out, hand them a sheet of paper citing these precedents and make it very clear that their ignorance of the law in no way supersedes either statute or precedent.