Letter to the Editor: Splicing the Data on Reveal Math

(This letter was submitted by Daniel Rothman)

To the Editor,

Scarsdale is known for academic excellence, and we need a board that will continue to elevate it. We need Board members who will work with parents, educators and administrators to improve pathways for parent input and district-wide communication. Most importantly, they must ask respectful questions and hold the administration accountable when results slip.

That is why I am voting for Kevin Ziegler and Omer Wiczyk.

The district celebrates that Scarsdale students are still "Proficient" under Reveal Math. Across Grades 3 through 6, the share of students scoring "Proficient" averaged 89.5% across the three years before Reveal (2017-18, 2018-19, 2021-22)*. Across the three years since Reveal was adopted (2022-23, 2023-24, 2024-25), that number climbed slightly to 91.9%. The district cites this as proof the curriculum is working.

But this celebration of "Proficient" is a celebration of mediocrity. On New York State's four-point scale, "Proficient" lumps Level 3 (meets standard, i.e. passing) with Level 4 (exceeds standard, i.e. excellent) into one number. Across the same three pre-Reveal years, Grades 3 through 6 averaged 59.3% excellent (Level 4). Across the three Reveal years, the average dropped to 50.1% excellent (Level 4). This is a 9.2 point reduction in excellence for our lower grades.

Parents have repeatedly asked the district to explain why they believe Reveal is the most effective math program for our children. It is safe to say the rollout has been bumpy at best. A year ago, at the district's June 2025 Reveal Math Coffee, parents put forward three concrete testing proposals. All three were declined, and no alternatives were shared. A school administration that refuses to critically evaluate its own curriculum and treats parent concerns as a nuisance is one that needs a change. Erica German has volunteered many hours, and I genuinely thank her for her service. But being a long-time insider is the opposite of what is needed. The insiders are the ones who told parents we weren’t qualified to engage. They are not going to be the ones who change that culture. We need a board willing to ask questions and constructively develop solutions.

After speaking with Kevin and Omer, I am confident that if elected they will critically assess the data, ask respectful questions, and preserve the values that define our schools: academic excellence, intellectual curiosity, and an environment where students are challenged. More importantly, Kevin & Omer are already building those communication pathways between parents, administrators and the Board. They came to my neighborhood to seek out a diversity of perspectives. That is why I will be voting for them, and if you want to continue having some of the best schools in the country (keeping your property values high), you will too.

Daniel Rothman
172 Boulevard

* Source: NYSED Data Site, data.nysed.gov, Scarsdale UFSD Grades 3 through 6 Math Assessment, six years of district report cards. Institution ID 800000034921. Pre-Reveal years: 2017-18, 2018-19, 2021-22. Reveal years: 2022-23, 2023-24, 2024-25. 2019-20 cancelled for COVID. 2020-21 excluded due to low participation. Same data the district uses.

Commenting on Rothman's letter, Mayra Kirkendall Rodriguez said the following:

Correlation Is Not Causation

I read Mr. Rothman’s letter with great interest. It seems to be a partial data analysis of some Scarsdale math test scores combined with a campaign letter and a critique of the Scarsdale School District Administration and current school board. Essentially, Mr. Rothman states that elementary school math scores in the Scarsdale School District have declined since the Reveal Math curriculum was rolled out in the District. Yet, correlation is not causation.

Without seeing grade-by-grade data, variance, subgroup performance, or statewide comparisons, it is difficult to see if the change in math test scores is due to the Reveal Math curriculum itself or whether there are other factors influencing the data.

Given the concern of some elementary school parents about the Reveal Math curriculum, conducting data analysis is a very worthy endeavor. Mr. Rothman’s disaggregation of Level 3 and Level 4 scores rather than treating “Proficient” as a monolith is a valid data analysis methodology. Using a combined metric can easily mask a shift from "excellent" to merely "passing." Asking for a granular breakdown when analyzing data sets is fair, relevant, and can be very useful.

For individuals wanting to analyze the Reveal Math curriculum dispassionately, however, there are several factors that would be worth addressing in a subsequent data analysis iteration to come up with an assessment of the Reveal Math curriculum.

I include my questions and observations here.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yjbOGe_EQWpSmyC26Qp3hWN4JqFedj5-6RWpo7Ltmaw/edit?usp=sharing That document also includes a list I researched and compiled of almost 300 cities and counties that have implemented the Reveal Math curriculum across the U.S.

And Tina Lin had this to say:

I have to take issue with Mr. Rothman's statement that "insiders told parents that they aren't qualified to engage". As an "insider", I don't think that anyone on the PTA would ever make such a statement. The PTA celebrates how involved, knowledgeable and qualified our community is, and we have always encouraged parental involvement and voice. It's the definition of the PTA. Further, being a long term volunteer does NOT preclude Erica German from asking questions and constructively developing solutions.

In fact, she is probably better positioned to ask the right questions and develop effective solutions faster because she already has a foundation. Erica's qualifications should also not be reduced to being a "PTA volunteer." She is a psychiatrist, who also understands child development and is a specialist in listening and communication. As a parent of a 4th grader and a member of the PTC EC, Erica is perfectly aware of and has communicated to the administration about parents' concerns with Reveal Math, but the reality is that PTC/PTAs don't have a "vote" on the Board. She has done what she can: initiated group forums, facilitated individual parent meetings, and has proactively provided feedback to Drew & Edgar. She's running for BOE to be able to make a larger impact.

Finally, I also have to strongly question Mr. Rothman's assertion that Kevin and Omer showing up for some meet and greets in the past month makes them better connected to the community than Erica German, who has been in the community, in the schools, showing up for BOE meetings, talking to parents, day in and day out for 17 years. Everyone should support who they want for the Board, and our community has some terrific options this year. However, please do not try to garner support for your candidates by playing on parents' frustration with Reveal Math and then making false statements about what Erica German represents and what she intends to and is able to do.