Betrayed - Why Public Education Is Failing

Public forums are public's chance to be heard

2009-11-07T20:21:00.000-08:00

Spokane Public Schools is undergoing a high school mathematics curriculum adoption process. District administrators have been intentional about inviting public comment before formal decisions are made. Two public forums are scheduled:

Nov. 10, North Central High School, 6-7 pm
Nov. 12, Lewis and Clark High School, 6-7 pm

Please consider participating in these meetings - either by offering comment yourself or by notifying your students about these meetings. It could be helpful to the process, for example, if college students and graduates were to reflect back on their high school mathematics classes. Did they get the math they needed for a successful college experience? Did they require remediation in mathematics during K-12 or after they graduated? These reflections would help inform the selection process.

Parents can offer their thoughts on what they want from a high school mathematics curriculum, and also how they prefer this material be presented and taught. They're welcome to bring their middle school and high school students. No doubt the students have experiences and preferences they would like to share with the committee.

Additionally, business owners and tradespeople can discuss the skills they require from students who complete the school district's mathematics curriculum.

Nov. 10 and Nov. 12 are your opportunities to be heard. Because each forum is just one hour long, it will be helpful to bring your comments in writing, just in case there isn't enough time for everyone. If you cannot make it to the meeting, please feel free to submit any comments in writing to the school district or to members of the school board.

I am a committee member, however this particular notice was not written on behalf of the committee.

Please come to these forums if you can. Tell them what you want. And thank you very much for whatever you can do to help inform the selection process.

To new subscribers: I'm sorry for a technical glitch

2009-10-29T11:42:00.000-07:00

I am a very, very bad blogger. I owe many people an apology. I have been accidentally deleting subscription requests for this blog -- any that came to me with the subject message of "Subscribe." If you sent me an automatic message from the link on the right, I probably wiped you out, never knowing what was in your message.

Between Safer Child, Inc., a nonprofit I run at http://www.saferchild.org , and the Betrayed blog, I receive hundreds of SPAM emails every single day. They come with all sorts of subject messages (most not printable here), and some come with viruses and spyware attached. Because of these problems, we have had to replace our computer equipment several times, and we have lost much work over the last decade, including critical emails and one of my master's degree papers, which I had to rewrite. (The paper was better the second time around, but this would not prevent me from kicking the evil hacker in the shins.)

We are now skittish of messages that have SPAM-like subject messages, such as the subject message "Subscribe." Sadly, "Subscribe" is also the automatic subject message for subscription requests to the Betrayed blog. I didn't set it up that way - it's just how it is.

If you asked to subscribe and did not hear from me, this is probably what happened to you. Please send another request to wlroge@comcast.net, or via the "Subscribe to Betrayed" link off to the right. I will no longer automatically delete messages with a subject message of "Subscribe."

My daughter is delighted to see that I have finally arrived in the 21st century, technology-wise.

Thanks very much for your patience.
Laurie Rogers

Parents & teachers: Demand the respect you're owed

2009-10-08T10:13:00.000-07:00

The latest catchy word in the media is “civility.” The media – our ever-vigilant protectors of American decency and morality – are all over this, pausing in their meticulously well-balanced coverage of the weighty issues facing the nation so they can write pages and pages of in-depth analysis on how various semi-celebrities and politicians have been rude.

The media could use a mirror, but perhaps these erudite mountebanks have a point. Some folks have been rude. Still, there’s a larger issue here, which I think the media are missing. (I know – it was a complete shock to me, too.)

Incivility and poor manners are symptoms of a lack of respect. The media ought to know more about that than anyone. Right on the media’s heels, however, are certain public-education administrators who also display a lack of respect for their publics.

Was that a cheap shot? It hasn’t been cheap for me. I’m a reasonably well-educated, polite, friendly, frequently funny person who is slightly more intelligent than a doorknob. I care about the children – the one living in my house and those in the school down the street, throughout the district, and all across the nation. I want to help them learn so they’ll grow up, achieve great things and support me in my dotage with whatever pittance the government hasn’t already spent on itself. And so, with all the best intentions, I do my research, politely ask questions of administrators, make helpful suggestions, ask for something better than what we have now (and “better” isn’t hard to find), bring solid research to the table, volunteer my help, and wait patiently to be heard. I follow the rules, don’t speak out of turn, and almost never stand up and tell certain people how completely useless they appear to be.

And yet – despite my general wonderfulness, my innate brilliance and my astute wisdom – almost every official and administrator in public education treats me as though I’m an idiot, a whacko, or just invisible. What’s up with that? How did public education become inundated with so many people who are condescending, self-centered – and at times contemptuously dismissive? These people hold our children’s future – our country’s future – in their unapologetically arrogant hands. Why do we not demand more of them? Why do we not hold them accountable?

Lord knows, I have tried.

District: At the district level, most school board members don’t answer my questions. Only one in Spokane – Dr. Jeff Bierman, a physics professor – actually talks with me. Several walk past me with eyes averted, as if I’m not there. One rolls his eyes when he sees me. I haven’t been rude in their meetings – I swear – just persistent.

The school superintendent has a habit of introducing herself to me as if I haven’t spoken to the board half a dozen times, haven’t met her, haven’t asked her questions in open forums, and didn’t sit in her office last year for an hour interviewing her.

Instead of asking me if they can see the research I’ve compiled, certain district staff members tell me I have nothing to tell them about what my daughter needs for curriculum or teaching methodology. And yet, they have no scientific research to show me, no solid answers to give me, and they get testy with me on the phone. I swear to you I am the soul of patience with them.

State: Over the last few years, I’ve sent several requests for information to the Washington State Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) (our state department of education). Unless I send my requests wrapped in a formal Request for Public Information, I usually do not receive a reply, much less answers. Fortunately, the person who manages those formal requests is pleasant and professional, and she never forgets me. She’s a sunny spot in my otherwise gloomy 2 ½-year relationship with OSPI.

Governor: In July, I called the Washington State governor’s office to speak about the state’s participation in a) the national education standards being put together by the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers, and b) the federal Race to the Top initiative. I left messages for Judy Hartmann, the person the governor’s office recommended as a contact. Ms. Hartmann didn’t return my phone calls. In September, I left a third message. A few weeks later, I called again. Finally, on September 30, her assistant called to set up a phone appointment. (I’ll discuss this phone call in an upcoming article).

What took so long? I’m told that Ms. Hartmann’s been busy with the coordination of contacts for the national education standards and Race to the Top. Boy, that taxpayer money sure motivates. (Maybe that’s why these people don’t seem motivated to talk to me. They already have more of my money than I do, and they can just take more of it whenever they want it.)

Federal: I’ve contacted the U.S. Department of Education multiple times since July 11 to ask about its involvement in the national education standards. Repeatedly, my questions were refused, and I was told to contact the NGA and CCSSO.

But I already had. On July 11 I’d emailed the NGA, the CCSSO and their partner Achieve, Inc. After a second email, Achieve finally responded by directing me to the CCSSO. So far, the NGA and CCSSO haven’t acknowledged my existence.

Finally, I emailed the Department of Education with a formal Request for Public Information. I received an initial email and clarifying phone call, but no answers.

Two weeks ago, I called the DoE for the 5th time. Let’s call it nearly a dozen contacts altogether that I’ve made to the DoE, trying to get about 30 simple questions answered. I was promised a reply on Monday, Sept. 28. On Sept. 30, I received an email telling me they were still locating documents and would soon provide me with a cost estimate. Oh, joy. Clearly, “soon” is a relative term, as in - "We'll get back to you sooner than the arrival of the next millennium."

So much for transparency.

Public education is a bureaucracy. Administrators manage a lot of people and stacks of paper, and they have the same 24 hours we do. (This is one of the myriad arguments for opposing the federal takeover of public education. If administrators won’t talk to you now, just wait until you’re trying to talk to suits in Washington, DC.)

But the problem isn’t just bureaucracy. It’s also a real and persistent lack of respect – for parents, students, and teachers. By and large, administrators don’t have to answer questions, so most don’t. Or, they neatly sidestep them. They play the odds, betting you’ll give up and go away. Most of us do. There isn’t much that can be done.

Or so they think.

Parents can insist on respect for themselves and their children. They can stand up and demand answers, and they can persist until they get what they need. They can refuse to accept “No, I don’t know, It isn’t me, I didn’t do it, It isn’t important, You’re the only one who’s ever asked, Well, we’ll think about it.”

When asking questions doesn’t work, parents can vote with their feet. They can vote board members out, they can leave the system, they can tell their friends, they can write letters, contact their representatives, and make it public. When all else fails, they can file a lawsuit.

Most education administrators and board members with whom I’ve spoken don’t respect me, although some pretend to. (The few who do know who they are.) It’s been a steep learning curve, but now I know how the playing field is laid out. I’m still here, and I want to know what they’re doing.

Parents, students and teachers, I’m asking you to join me. Stand up and demand a say in the decisions these people make. Sure, we can do this civilly, but don’t let anyone’s use of that word keep you from asking questions. It isn’t uncivil to expect decision-makers to be honest and forthcoming. It isn’t uncivil to hold them accountable, or to push for the truth.

Stand up for the children. Take back their future. Take back the public education system. Stand up and fight for the respect you are owed.

Please note: The information in this post is copyrighted. The proper citation is:
Rogers, L. (October, 2009). "Parents & teachers: Demand the respect you're owed." Retrieved (date) from the Betrayed Web site: http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailing.blogspot.com/

Administrators, board members need reality check

2009-09-12T12:13:00.000-07:00

I challenge district board members and administrators to go out into the school district and start working with the children. I’m not talking about photo ops, obsequious gift giving, and meaningless meet-and-greets of the great, unwashed masses. I’m talking about working with the children, sitting down with them to tutor them in arithmetic, talking with them in all seriousness about their education, finding out how it’s been going, what their challenges are, what they would like to see happen, and what they really need. I’m talking about regular, quality time, every month.

If school administrators were open to learning something – and not just interested in hearing what they already believe – then working with the students could be a real education, a comeuppance, and a humbling experience.

“Keep it real, dude” should be the law – or at least district policy. But it’s easier to avoid reality, to make policy from afar, to field phone calls off the record, and to hold meetings where no one has to answer questions. My goal, therefore, is to help administrators keep it real.

Hey, here comes some reality now.

I’ve spoken at length with a Spokane principal about a free tutoring program for some of his K-6 students. At the end of the last conversation, I could see I would have to take my tutoring program elsewhere. It isn’t that he can’t use the help. In his school last spring, just 63% of the 4th graders and 59% of the 6th graders passed the state standardized math tests. It isn’t that he can’t let me in the door. I’m not a whacko, drug addict or criminal. I’ve volunteered in this school district for the last six years. The reasons I took my tutoring elsewhere are these:

I want to teach arithmetic. The principal insisted he wouldn’t feel “comfortable” unless I taught multiple ways to solve math problems. He did NOT want me to focus on traditional algorithms.
I want to teach arithmetic. The principal said he wants me to include other subjects in the tutoring (such as language arts).
I know my limitations. The principal said he wants me to include all types of learners, including students who qualify for special education. When I made it clear I’m not trained in special education, he accused me of not meaning it when I said everyone can learn arithmetic.
He said there is no money available for tutoring in arithmetic. Therefore, parents would be charged for something their children should be getting for free in the classroom.

What a mess.

The principal and I batted this conversation back and forth for more than an hour. He kept saying the same meaningless things over and over.

“Why do the students even need the Lattice Method?” I asked him at one point.
“So they can get a deeper understanding of the concept,” he said.
“Right, so we teach the traditional algorithm, we show them how it works, we have them practice it, and they get that deeper understanding,” I said. “Why do they need the Lattice Method?”
Pause. “So they can get a deeper understanding,” he said firmly, still certain.

At last, reluctantly, I gave up. I got in touch with a local tutor, who invited me to volunteer at an outreach center. And there, I must say, I am getting one hell of an education.

The students there have heartbreaking challenges in their life, and I can do nothing at all about most of them. Despite the fact that reform math is supposed to help disadvantaged students, these students have the same gaps in math knowledge as everybody else (exacerbated by the additional challenges).

I also found out that high school students who don’t have basic arithmetic skills can be enrolled in Algebra I. They also can be enrolled in Advanced Placement classes. (They’re likely to fail or drop out of these classes, of course, whereupon some administrators will say, “Well, they must have learned something while they were there.”)

I heard that some school counselors advise vulnerable students as follows: “Don’t worry about the exams. To go to the Skills Center or ROTC or college, you need these classes on your transcript. Just take the classes and do a portfolio or project at the end. They’ll let you graduate and then you can do what you want.”

These high school students are nervous, scared even – filled with bravado and doubt in equal portions, frightened of looking stupid. “I’m not (worried) about it,” one of them said to me repeatedly, not meeting my gaze. Watching him, I pondered the “discovery” learning method, so enthusiastically and inexplicably embraced by the schools. Like everyone else, this student will be told to work in groups and on his own to “discover” his own methods. I imagined him trying to discover thousands of years of math by trial and error. It made me angry. He needs to be taught, not pitched back into the hell of the Discovery Dog and Pony Show. But what do district administrators know of him or the other students in this district? What do board members know? Very little. Next to nothing. Maybe nothing at all.

I have an idea. District administrators and board members should set a policy of going into the schools each month for a certain amount of time, where they must tutor the students. If they do this, they’ll see 4th graders who already hate mathematics, 6th-graders who add on their fingers, and high school students who aren’t sure of how to do long division. They’ll see smart but ill-prepared students who flunked out of their AP classes and who now worry their friends see them as stupid.

They’ll see kids with fierce dreams, daunting fears and multiple life challenges – kids whose future looms large and forbidding in their mind. They’ll see that by high school, the students’ gaps in critical academic skills and knowledge are enormous, monstrous, and seemingly insurmountable.

They’ll see principals who are absolutely certain beyond any shadow of a doubt that current teaching methods will work, despite the entire last decade of contrary evidence.

Unless they are willfully blind to it, administrators and board members will see their hand in this mess, and they’ll see the gargantuan gap between what they’re doing and what they could and should be doing.

It’s so easy for administrators to sit around and make policy, to approve this or that, pontificate about how great things are, go on television and moan about a pretend lack of money, and commiserate with each other about how parents, students, legislators and teachers are to blame for the low test scores. "Stay in school,” they tell students. “Work hard. Do your best. Take this seriously.” As if that fixes it. It’s harder to go into the classroom and find out how things really are. It’s harder to go to PTA meetings and listen to frustrated parents. It’s harder to watch as children valiantly attempt to follow ineffectual district curricula and policies.

It’s really hard to sit in the hallway with a 4th-grader and his math homework and try to convince him that he is NOT stupid, that math is NOT hard, that he WILL get it -- all the while knowing that he’s going back to a curriculum that will continue to confuse him. It’s really easy to show that child how to do it properly and to help him practice it. It’s really rewarding to see him get it. It’s really stupid that this tutoring process is so necessary right now. It’s criminal that administrative roadblocks keep it from happening.

Here’s my challenge to administrators and school board members. If you’re really there to do some good, then get out of your office, sit down with the students and start learning something. Your customers have something to teach you.

Please note: The information in this post is copyrighted. The proper citation is:
Rogers, L. (September, 2009). "Administrators, board members need reality check." Retrieved (date) from the Betrayed Web site: http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailing.blogspot.com/

This article was published Sept. 16, 2009, on ednews.org at http://www.ednews.org/articles/administrators-board-members-need-reality-check-.html

Blame math problem on administrators

2009-08-28T20:40:00.000-07:00

(Updated Oct. 2, 2009)

During the Aug. 26 board meeting for Spokane Public Schools, Razak Garoui, director of Assessment and Program Evaluation, blamed new legislation for the district’s abysmal math test scores. (According to a previous news report, he also said scores were low because students didn’t take the test seriously.)

Listening to Dr. Garoui, I was reminded of a song that was NOT sung by Milli Vanilli. “Blame It On the Rain” was a major hit for Milli Vanilli late in 1989, just before news broke that the duo was only pretending to sing. While suffering through the pretense of Dr. Garoui’s Aug. 26 presentation, I recalled the chorus of “Blame It On the Rain”:

“Gotta blame it on something
Blame it on the rain (rain)
Blame it on the stars (stars)
Whatever you do don't put the blame on you
Blame it on the rain yeah yeah
You can blame it on the rain”

I became annoyed with Dr. Garoui and Milli Vanilli. As a diversion, I found and began to read the August 2009 issue of the district’s newsletter “School Talk.” The issue contains an article titled “It All Adds Up To Math.” In this article:

A Shadle Park high school teacher says, “I’m impressed by the students’ depth of understanding, and their ability to communicate mathematical ideas.”
(Shadle’s pass rate for the 10th-grade math test in 2009 was 47.4%.)
A Ridgeview Elementary School teacher says, “Kids are able to apply concepts seamlessly in different contexts. They are excited about math now.”
(Ridgeview’s pass rates for the 3rd-6th-grade math tests were 62.1%, 56.3%, 58.2% and 43.5%).
A Chase Middle School teacher says, “The curriculum does a good job of pushing kids to discover their own understanding. And it also allows time to practice skills and algorithms.”

(Chase’s pass rates for the 7th-8th-grade math tests were 52.8% and 55.6%).

The article says: “Student scores on statewide assessments are, in some cases, showing improvement. However, there are still students not achieving at the level necessary to demonstrate mastery of standards."
(No kidding. Nowhere in this happy article is the fact that in 2009, Spokane Public Schools' 10th-grade math WASL pass rate was just 42.3%.)

Following Dr. Garoui’s comments, board member Dr. Jeff Bierman, a physics professor at Gonzaga, commented on the “abysmal” WASL results for mathematics and on the “almost deceitful” district representation of student achievement. That’s when Superintendent Nancy Stowell blamed the low test scores on the teachers. She said the math problem isn’t just about curriculum; it’s about the quality of teaching. She added, “And we have a real problem in this district” with quality teaching.

Wow. Really? That’s probably news to Spokane teachers. The Garoui/Stowell comments are unsupported by evidence. They actually stand in direct opposition to the flood of available evidence on Spokane’s execrable math curricula. After everything she’s heard – over several years and from parents, teachers and advocates – after all of the research and reports she’s received – Dr. Stowell prefers to just blame the teachers.

“Gotta blame it on something
Blame it on the rain that was falling, falling
Blame it on the stars that did shine at night
Whatever you do don't put the blame on you
Blame it on the rain yeah yeah”

This isn’t the first time I’ve heard Dr. Stowell blame the teachers. In a 2008 interview, I told her some teachers believe they’ve been disciplined for voicing their concerns, and she said that didn’t surprise her. The district has “a wide variety of teachers out there,” she said, “some of them very, very successful; and some less successful. And so, you know, people have issues along that continuum.” Some teachers just don’t like change, she added – somewhat hypocritically, I thought, considering that, as a whole, she and her fellow administrators seem completely adverse to effective change. These administrators are a nearly immoveable force – stain-resistant, impermeable, opaque and impervious. They’re like a black hole, sucking in all available taxpayer money and emitting no Light At the End of the Tunnel.

Teachers, however, are forced to change. They either change in response to every administrative whim, or they’re forced out. Afraid to voice their concerns, many teachers become silent and submissive. And yet – while doing exactly as they’re told – teachers are still blamed for low test scores.

“We have a real problem” with quality teaching, Dr. Stowell says.

Jim Harrison, 6th-grade teacher at Balboa Elementary School, was neither silent nor submissive. He fought a long and almost solitary fight for better mathematics instruction in Spokane. Parents and students are fond of him. They look up to him and believe he gave them his best. Last spring, Jim’s principal, Pat Lynass, broke WASL testing protocol in Jim’s class in several ways. A district spokesperson said Ms. Lynass will not be disciplined for these infractions. Jim’s class, however, was labeled a “problem.” This year, Jim is on a leave of absence. Next year, he retires.

“You got to blame it on something
(Blame it on the rain)
(Blame it on the stars)
Whatever you do don't put the blame on you”

Teachers, parents and students tend to be blamed because they have little voice. Even as Dr. Stowell and her curriculum coordinators say publicly that no one knows how to solve the math problem – that “no one has a silver bullet” – they refuse to listen to the people who DO know how to solve the math problem.

People all over the world HAVE solved the math problem, just by teaching it properly. That’s all it takes. They teach it. They don’t blame teachers, students, legislators, a fake lack of money, new standards, student hormones, parents, society, or students’ alleged bad attitude. They don’t ask students to learn mathematics by cutting out paper dolls, playing with molding clay and straws, or counting bird calls. They don’t expect children to teach math to each other or to themselves. Recognizing that it’s silly to teach mathematics by not teaching it, people all over the world just get up there and teach it – effectively, efficiently, with little fanfare but with superior results.

In Spokane, it would be refreshing to hear administrators say, “We’ve really screwed this up. We don’t have a problem with quality teaching; what we have here is a failure in administration. We should all leave right now, give up our pay, our bonuses, our travel allowances and our fancy offices. We stink. We should give back several years of pay. In fact, we should pay the students for what we’ve done to them.”

But I doubt we’ll ever hear anything from Spokane administrators acknowledging their responsibility for the mess that is K-12 math instruction. It’s time board members took Dr. Stowell to task. She and some of her employees have said that no one knows how to solve the math problem. This is both arrogant and incorrect. A positive step toward fixing the math problem in Spokane would be for Nancy Stowell, the math curriculum coordinators, their supervisors – and sure, while we’re at it, Razak Garoui – to resign.

Please note: The information in this post is copyrighted. The proper citation is:Rogers, L. (August, 2009). "Blame math problem on administrators." Retrieved (date) from the Betrayed Web site: http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailing.blogspot.com/

This article was published Aug. 31, 2009, on Ednews.org, at: http://www.ednews.org/articles/blame-math-problem-on-administrators.html

FACT: SPS looks bad in testing violations

2009-08-21T12:20:00.000-07:00

(Updated Aug. 28, 2009)

In the spring of 2009, Madison Chapman was a student in Jim Harrison's 6th-grade class at Balboa Elementary School, Spokane, WA. During the administration of the state standardized test (the WASL), Pat Lynass, principal of Balboa Elementary, violated WASL protocol by interfering with the secure administration of the test. (This is not in dispute.) Since then, Spokane Public Schools (SPS) administrators have gone on the record as saying that the principal will not be disciplined for these violations, but that Jim Harrison's class is a "problem." (Mr. Harrison has been vocal in the past about Spokane's poor mathematics curricula.)

On Aug. 12, Madison's father, Hal Chapman, spoke to the school board. Before his allotted five minutes were up, the school board president interrupted Mr. Chapman to tell him his time was running out and to ask him to summarize. The president said the state was looking at the issue and the district had to leave it with the state. Mr. Chapman said his goal was to deliver the facts to the school board and to the assembled people, and he asked the board for another minute so he could finish his presentation. After a brief discussion, the president agreed to give him another minute.

Following is the full text of Hal Chapman's presentation to the school board on August 12.

***
I would like to take this time to thank the board for giving me this opportunity to speak about events that led to an official bullying and harassment complaint form being filed on behalf of Madison Chapman, 6th grader at Balboa Elementary.

The District has made attempts to mask the reason Pat Lynass was proctor in Mr. Harrison's class. I am here today to make the FACTS very clear to everyone.

Fact: On April 16th, Pat Lynass, while alone, thumbed through finished WASL tests in the privacy of her own office. Fact: That is a violation of WASL rules and protocol.

While thumbing through those tests, Pat Lynass came across a few students whom she felt could have made a better effort to answer questions that would be more favorable to the school and the district.

Fact: Pat Lynass had 5 days from April 16th to April 21st to come to the teacher, the students, or their parents and discuss what she found. She chose not to.

On April 21st, just before the test was about to begin, Pat Lynass excused the original proctor and assumed the duties of proctor in that classroom for the day. Within minutes after the test began, Pat Lynass made her way to Madison Chapman and leaned down and told her that if she didn't do well on this portion of the WASL exam she would NOT be able to get into an advanced placement math class at Salk Middle School next year -- A BOLD-FACED LIE.

Fact: This is against WASL protocol. Trying to influence a child into getting answers that are more favorable to the school and the district is considered cheating and is a VERY serious violation.

Fact: WASL test scores for incoming 7th graders are NOT utilized to prevent students from accessing the honors program.

The fact that Pat Lynass had information on the 16th and decided to use that information 5 days later to harass/bully and manipulate a 12-year-old child is VERY disturbing. To have the district condone this behavior by a principal would validate suspicions that these violations are tolerated and accepted as a means to manipulate scores in favor of the school and the district.

Fact: The teacher Mr. Harrison excused Madison to use the bathroom after Pat Lynass had humiliated her and she began to cry. Pat Lynass proceeded to follow Madison into the bathroom and closed the door behind her. She then continued to badger Maddi until she no longer wanted to go back into the classroom to finish the test.

Fact: Pat Lynass as the proctor has an obligation to provide a quiet testing atmosphere and remain in that classroom to proctor, and AGAIN failed to follow protocol.

Fact: Pat Lynass told me she did this because the district failed to meet its AYP for having low test scores, and she had to make sure the district wouldn't fall short of expectations again this year because federal funding was riding on these tests.

Fact: Pat Lynass went over to another student’s test that was finished and lying faced down. Pat Lynass picked up that test. thumbed through it, pointed to an unfinished portion, placed it back in front of the student and told him he needed to finish this test.

Fact: This is another blatant disregard for the rules governing the test. Again -- trying to influence a child into getting answers that favor the school and the district is cheating and AGAIN, I (along with the surrounding parents and taxpayers in Spokane Public School boundaries) are wondering WHY the principal is NOT going to be held accountable for her actions, AND WHY does the district condone this kind of behavior ???

Fact: The district has targeted Mr. Harrison and, on the Channel 4 KXLY 6 o'clock News, has accused him of being a problem teacher.

The district insists that because of the number of people who opted out of the WASL the year prior, Pat Lynass needed to be in Mr. Harrison's classroom on April 21st.

Fact: A parent’s choice to opt a student out of testing is NOT a violation.

Fact: What Pat Lynass has managed to pull off is definitely a series of serious violations.

Fact: I have the original proctor schedule in my possession and Pat Lynass is not on there at all to assume the proctor duties in Mr. Harrison's classroom. If the district felt the need to have Pat observe Mr. Harrison's classroom for something that happened a year ago, the schedule would reflect that.

Fact: It's time the district stops condoning and tolerating this kind of behavior, and ... it's time the district is held accountable for continuing to protect a principal named Pat Lynass who has become a liability. Board members, I hope you are finding this interesting. As you are a publicly elected, volunteer board, ultimately responsible to the community for the successful implementation of the school district’s mission, I have to ask: What exactly was District 81's mission on and after the 21st of April and do you stand behind that mission?

I would like to refer to Ivan Bush’s investigation findings in the bullying report. The investigation did substantiate that Mrs. Lynass's interactions with Madison during testing – and after Madison was released from testing – caused embarrassment and humiliation for her.

I am disgusted that District 81 continues to cover up the real issue, refuses to hold Pat Lynass accountable for her actions, has yet to offer any kind of apology, and worst of all continues to publicly badmouth the best thing Balboa has going for it -- their 6th-grade teacher Mr. Harrison.

I would ask that the board please respond. Thank you.

Hal Chapman

***

Federal control expands despite the rules

2009-07-26T23:18:00.000-07:00

The federal government is taking over public education. It has no legal authority to do this, but it’s doing it anyway. This is not change I believe in.

New national education Common Core Standards (CCS) were released in draft form in July, reportedly “prematurely.” Critics call these supposedly “international” benchmarks vague, fuzzy and inadequate, but the most critical questions about them actually have to do with the fact of their existence.

In theory, the CCS initiative was driven by the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices (NGA) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). The standards will be followed by development of a national assessment and perhaps a national curriculum. President Barack Obama and U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan have said they support this initiative.

I have questions for those who are pushing this initiative on an unsuspecting public:

Who are they? Who lurks there in the dark, behind the scenes, basketball shoes in one hand and a bully whip in the other?
How much will this initiative cost the taxpayer (who already pays ridiculous sums of money for an arrogant, secretive, ineffective, close-minded, top-heavy public-education bureaucracy)?
Under what authority does the U.S. Department of Education direct, supervise, or control “the curriculum program of instruction, administration, or personnel of any educational institution, school, or school system”?
- (Hint: None, according to Congress.)
Where is the voter in this entire process?
- (Hint: Nowhere, except as a means for more money.)

Since July 1, I’ve been asking questions of the U.S. Department of Education (DoE); the Washington State Governor’s Office; the Washington State Board of Education (SBE); the Washington State Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI); the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices (NGA); the Chief Council of State School Officers (CCSSO); and Achieve, Inc. (which is partnering with the NGA and CCSSO). Here’s what’s happened so far.

U.S. Department of Education:
From July 11-22, the DoE steadfastly refused to answer my emailed questions, repeatedly referring me to the NGA and CCSSO. I told them my questions had to do with DoE policy, but this had zero effect. I changed my tactic, calling the DoE directly. On July 25, I finally found a person willing to address my questions.

Besides the CCS initiative, I’m concerned about the DoE’s changing role. For example, Race to the Top is a competition for $4.35 billion in federal grants that President Obama and Sec. Duncan formally announced July 24. President Obama reportedly “wants states to use funds to ease limits on charter schools, tie teacher pay to student achievement and move for the first time toward common academic standards” (Shear & Anderson, 2009). He reportedly said in a July 23 Oval Office interview: “What we're saying here is, if you can't decide to change these practices, we're not going to use precious dollars that we want to see creating better results; we're not going to send those dollars there.”

Sec. Duncan has reportedly threatened California with the loss of federal “stimulus” funds if it doesn’t tie teacher evaluations to student achievement (Felch & Song, 2009). What does this have to do with the CCS initiative? Answer: Nothing.

Do what we tell you, California was told, or you don’t get the money. Whose money is this? Ours. Whose vision is it? Good question. Federal “support” is looking more like coercion or blackmail. This behavior is inappropriate. The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution says that “powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Public education, therefore, falls outside of federal authority.

Despite the Tenth Amendment, the Department of Education was created in 1980 to:

increase equal access
“supplement and complement” the efforts of states, schools, parents and students, and "encourage” community involvement
improve education through research, evaluation and information sharing
help coordinate federal programs, improve their management and efficiency, and increase their accountability to Congress, the public and the president.

From its inception, the DoE’s activities were deliberately limited – especially with respect to decision-making. The original act (Public Law 96-88) says “the establishment of the Department of Education shall not increase the authority of the Federal Government over education or diminish the responsibility for education which is reserved to the States and the local school systems and other instrumentalities of the States.”

According to "20 USC Sec. 3403," the DoE is prohibited from “any direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum program of instruction, administration, or personnel of any educational institution, school, or school system.” The DoE acknowledges this, adding that “the establishment of schools and colleges, the development of curricula, the setting of requirements for enrollment and graduation -- these are responsibilities handled by the various states and communities, as well as by public and private organizations of all kinds, not by the U.S. Department of Education.”

All of this might as well be history, folks. The DoE’s 1980 budget of $14 billion skyrocketed to a 2009 budget of $140.5 billion. Its appetite for power has surpassed all intents and purposes. Its top official is a gunslinger, swaggering his way around the country. And I – the most critical stakeholder in my child’s education – can’t even get a few simple questions answered.

State Governor’s Office:
On July 1, I emailed the Washington State governor’s office, asking for pertinent documentation on the CCS initiative. The legal affairs coordinator replied, sending me a heavily redacted document and a May 20 letter from the State Board of Education that had encouraged the governor to participate. One pertinent document was exempted from my request, due to “Executive Privilege.”

On July 11, I sent follow-up questions and a request for the exempted document. I received that document and was directed to Senior Policy Advisor Judy Hartmann for answers to my questions. I’ve twice requested a telephone appointment with Ms. Hartmann, but so far have been unsuccessful.

The exempted document is a confidential Decision Brief from Ms. Hartmann, having to do with a Memorandum of Agreement on the CCS initiative. The Brief indicates that by May 15, our governor had already decided to participate. (Therefore, the SBE’s May 20 letter, encouraging the governor to sign the MOA, was dated at least five days after her decision.) But the most interesting part about the Decision Brief is this:

“Federal standards adoption. While the standards are being developed by states, CCSSO/NGA believe federal money – Race To The Top - to support this work is appropriate as well as taking the next step to developing common assessments. Discussion: The MOA does not address the possibility of federal adoption of the standards. As you know, some in Congress are looking at this issue.
Race To The Top funds. There is the possibility that one of the criteria for participation in Race To The Top funds will be participating in the Common Standards project.”(At that point, with federal adoption of the standards and federal money contingent on participation in the CCS initiative, they might as well stuff "20 USC Sec. 3403" in the shredder. )

All states need to do is say no to this siren call. On July 24, our governor met with President Obama and Sec. Duncan in Washington, DC. At home the next day, the governor reportedly said that for a chance to “win” Race to the Top money, legislators “may need to talk about teacher evaluation, teacher pay and what the state is doing for struggling schools that are not getting better.”

State Board of Education:
The minutes from the May 14-15 meeting of the Washington State Board of Education note the board members’ decision to send the governor a supportive letter about the CCS initiative, but the agenda for that meeting didn’t mention their intent to discuss it. Therefore, the public wouldn’t have known.

I asked the SBE executive assistant to tell me which came first – the governor’s decision or the SBE’s May 20 letter. She would say only that the letter was “in support of” the governor’s decision. She eventually referred me and my questions to the governor and OSPI’s public disclosure officer (PDO).

Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction:
OSPI’s PDO, a polite and helpful person, says OSPI will provide me with pertinent documents a month from now, during the last half of August. My questions were referred to Superintendent Randy Dorn. I haven’t heard from him, but on July 14, I was notified that Deputy Superintendent Alan Burke would respond in 7-14 days.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices:
Council of Chief State School Officers:
Achieve, Inc.:
I sent emails to these three organizations July 11 and July 20. The NGA and the CCSSO haven’t responded. After the July 20 email, Achieve referred me to the CCSSO.

To recap:

The DoE refused my questions. I persisted until someone agreed to answer them.
The governor’s office sent me documents but hasn’t answered my questions.
The SBE sent me documents, then referred my questions elsewhere.
OSPI will send me documents late in August, but has yet to answer questions.
The NGA and CCSSO haven’t acknowledged my existence, much less answered questions.
Achieve, Inc. declined to answer questions, referring me elsewhere.Welcome to your new paradigm, folks. Parents are not the “stakeholders” that matter to these bureaucrats. They behave as if we don’t know anything and have nothing to contribute. They seem to think we should sit down, shut up and stop bothering the true professionals. We are not supposed to take notice of their obvious disregard for inconvenient laws and policies.
This message is coming through loud and clear, and I reject it completely.

The questions I’m asking are reasonable and not difficult. The tactics illustrated thus far allow a deeply flawed process to move forward until it appears to have enough momentum where it can’t be stopped. But it can be stopped if we speak up, ask the hard questions, refuse to be diverted, stand tall in defense of the Constitution and the laws and policies of the land, demand that government agencies stay in their proper lane, fight for our children’s education, and refuse to give the government an open checkbook for poorly defined programs.

Yes, we can.

Please note: The information in this post is copyrighted. The proper citation is:
Rogers, L. (July, 2009). "Federal control expands despite the rules." Retrieved (date) from the Betrayed Web site: http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailing.blogspot.com/

This article was published July 28, 2009, at EducationNews.org at http://ednews.org/articles/federal-control-expands-despite-the-rules-.html

CCS: Secretive, expensive and wrong

2009-07-12T12:25:00.000-07:00

In May, Washington State Gov. Chris Gregoire quietly joined most of the governors in signing a memorandum of agreement in support of a Common Core Standards effort (CCS). This effort – really a “movement” – is creating national education standards in mathematics and language arts. I asked for documentation on Gov. Gregoire's decision, and some of what I received was heavily redacted. One critical document wasn’t sent to me because it’s “exempt” from my request.

Now I’m really curious.

The CCS movement was initiated by the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices (NGA Center) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). The first stage (the national standards) is well under way. The second stage will “develop and implement” national assessments. Also mentioned in the NGA/CCSSO's memorandum of agreement (MOA) are textbooks, digital media, curricula, professional development and policy changes – all to be variously aligned, ensured, developed, implemented, or evaluated by “participating states.”

The concept of national standards isn’t new, but this particular movement is. The partnership between CCSSO, the NGA Center, and Achieve, Inc. was announced Sept. 9, 2008. On Dec. 19, a wish list of five “transformative steps” was announced. Step 1: “Upgrade state standards by adopting a common core of internationally benchmarked standards in math and language arts for grades K-12.”
Step 2: “Leverage states’ collective influence to ensure textbooks, digital media, curricula and assessments are aligned to internationally benchmarked standards.”

From Dec. 19, things went quickly (and quietly). On June 1, the NGA/CCSSO publicly announced the intent to develop national standards. By then, most states had already signed the NGA/CCSSO’s memorandum, reportedly having been given a May 8 deadline. The movement’s leaders refused to announce until at least July the members of the “national validation committee” or the “standards development group.” A July 1 press release finally released some names but also said “the Work Group's deliberations will be confidential throughout the process.”

Education Secretary Arne Duncan is supporting this movement with $350 million. He said so in a June 15 press release (seemingly his first on this topic). It must seem like pocket change to him – over a few months, he’s been doling out an extra $44 billion for public education. Meanwhile, the MOA signed by the governors says the “federal role” in the movement is to provide for: Revision and alignment of “existing federal education laws”; “greater flexibility in the use of existing federal funds”; and funding for the following:

the writing and implementation of the standards
the development of “common” assessments
a “revised accountability structure”
teacher and principal “professional development”
“other common core standards over time”
“a research agenda”

Wow. This is what happened in 1999. One minute there wasn’t a national program; the next, it was already signed, sealed and expensive. It makes me nervous.

Influence: The more centralized the decision-making, the less influence parents have. Already, we have little influence beyond voting with our feet. In a national program, everything is vetted from far away and by committees of strangers.
Secrecy: Leaders and participants haven’t been exactly forthcoming with names and details. Parents aren’t asked for opinions, consent or votes. The MOA said leaders would meet in an “open, inclusive, and efficient process” to develop end-of-high-school expectations – but it also set a target date of July 1, just one month after the movement was announced to the public.
Cost: I’ve seen no estimates of costs to taxpayers in dollars, personnel, resources, benefits and expenses. What happens to current contracts, textbooks, funding programs, and assessments? State leaders predict this movement will result in decreased education costs, but I predict exponentially greater costs and more layers of $100,000 Ph.D.s at district, state and federal levels.
Accountability: I fret over accountability to the public, especially considering the secrecy thus far. Who reviews these standards? What are their backgrounds? Where is the public in this? Who determines the efficacy of the movement?
Outcome: The MOA says the standards will be “research and evidence-based,” “grounded in empirical research” and will “draw on best practices.” Uh huh. Much of the research and evidence in American public education is flawed, insufficient, biased, and weak as a newborn kitten. I want to see this evidence.

Despite any concerns, nearly all of the governors signed on. I wrote to Gov. Gregoire, asking for answers. One of her employees sent a copy of a letter from the State Board of Education dated May 20 that urged her to support the CCS movement. It didn’t take much urging, I guess. On May 20, copies of the MOA – signed by Gov. Gregoire and Superintendent Randy Dorn – were forwarded to interested parties. But not to the public. Neither of them issued a press release.

I was also sent a copy of an April 24 “Executive Policy Office Weekly Update,” in which the CCS movement is discussed. About two-thirds of this is redacted (blacked out so I can’t read it). I did NOT get a copy of the “Governor’s Decision Document” – dated May 15, 2009, and written by the governor’s executive policy advisor. This two-page briefing document was “exempted” due to “Executive Privilege.”

(What rotten luck. It’s probably the one I wanted.)

Whenever I see a “closed door” like this, I want to open it, see what’s behind it. Public education is full of doors that are closed, locked, stuck, too monolithic to budge, moved to a different building, stuffed in a dusty box in the backroom, or just wiped right out of existence. What do I do with this door? A lawyer stands behind it. The redactions and exemptions could be a matter of national security, or they might just be hiding Gov. Gregoire’s grocery list. Who knows? I want this information because the national standards movement is wrong-headed right out of the gate.

Public education is a state responsibility. Even the U.S. Department of Education acknowledges this: “Education is primarily a state and local responsibility in the U.S. In creating the Department of Education, Congress made clear its intention that the secretary of education and other Department officials be prohibited from exercising “’any direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum program of instruction, administration, or personnel of any educational institution, school, or school system.’ (20 USC 3403) The establishment of schools and colleges, the development of curricula, the setting of requirements for enrollment and graduation - these are responsibilities handled by states and communities, as well as by public and private organizations, not by the U.S. Department of Education.”
The U.S. Department of Education has already overstepped its role in public education. Despite constant assurances that the CCS movement is “state-led,” it has long-term federal taxpayer money and federal fingerprints all over it.
The last set of “national standards” – from the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics – plunged the country into a mathematical Dark Ages from which we have yet to emerge, and where we will remain until the education establishment once again believes in directly teaching real content.
There is no avenue here for input from the real stakeholders: Parents and students.

I’ve sent more questions to Washington State’s Board of Education, the governor, the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, the National Governors Association, and the U.S. Department of Education. I’ll let you know what they say.

Please note: The information in this post is copyrighted. The proper citation is:
Rogers, L. (July, 2009). "CCS: Secretive, expensive and wrong." Retrieved (date) from the Betrayed Web site: http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailing.blogspot.com/

This article was published July 14, 2009, on Education News at: http://ednews.org/articles/common-core-standards-secretive-expensive-and-wrong.html

Why administrators don't listen

2009-07-03T08:39:00.000-07:00

“In the name of God, stop a moment, cease your work, look around you.”
-- Leo Tolstoy, author of “War and Peace”

A common complaint among math advocates is that the education establishment continually rejects pertinent data and valid research on how reform mathematics curricula are deeply, fatally flawed.

“It’s like watching a completely preventable traffic accident,” I’ve said. “How do they not see it? Why won't they listen to reason?”

No advocate has the answer, although there are suspicions. Some of the possibilities I’ve heard include these:

Kickbacks from publishers
Overly friendly relationships with publishers
Ignorance
Stupidity
Herd mentality
Indoctrination
Ego
Habit
Personal comfort
Political philosophy
Ennui

Spokane Public Schools persists with its reform math curricula despite all contrary evidence from the district, state and nation – and despite distressing results (a scary, black hole of dropouts, remediation and failed tests). The district must have some very compelling research on its side - research that math advocates haven’t seen.

In April and May, I asked district administrators for the research and data that support their continued use of reform curricula. Despite several formal requests for public information and a friendly phone call, I’ve received no data and no research. I was told that supporting research was tossed with yesterday’s meatloaf. No, I was actually told it wasn’t kept on hand. (The meatloaf is still there.) I don’t know why the research wouldn’t be kept because administrators keep referring to it (as in “research shows” and “according to the research”). Instead, I was given the names of three organizations and two types of tests, and I was invited to the central office to look over their “great number of materials on the subject of effective instruction in mathematics.” Technically, this is not “data” or “research.” Technically, I think this is called “skating.”

You’d think they’d at least try to have a good excuse. I would give points for creativity, like: “It’s lost in the Bermuda Triangle.” “It was destroyed by a magic bullet from a grassy knoll.” “Jimmy Hoffa had it with him when he disappeared.” “We were hoping Geraldo Rivera would find it in Al Capone’s vault.”

If the data and research don’t support these curricula, and the entire nation has found that a steady diet of reform leads to math incompetence and cataracts in laboratory rats … what is the real reason for their continued use? Could it be aliens? Think about it. If aliens came to Earth and wanted to take down America without firing a shot, this would be the ticket: Infiltrate public education, teach the children to think conceptually about nothing, and then pretend to fret as the country falls to its knees. It’s the perfect crime.

Look, I’m just saying it’s a possibility. Otherwise … well, choose your preferred explanation.

Leo Tolstoy reportedly said this about people who refuse to listen:

“I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives.”(Well, OK, but I still think some of them might be aliens.)

Meanwhile, we math advocates manage to keep each other going. We disagree about many things, but our dissent is generally friendly and respectful. It helps to keep us honest and thoughtful. We agree on one major point: American public-school math instruction is a blight upon the land. It’s a crater, a crime, a sin against the children.

It takes a strong stomach to know the truth of how bad it is, and still speak politely with administrators who keep saying the most ridiculous things. It’s tough to keep pushing, to keep trying, and to somehow avoid sinking into despair. When we talk with district decision-makers, we often find their eyes are glassy. They’ve breathed in the smoke and mirrors and can’t seem to hear anything but the twaddle from curriculum coordinators.

Tolstoy also reportedly said this:

“The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.”

Education’s decision-makers appear to be “firmly persuaded” – many will do whatever curriculum coordinators tell them to do. So we troop over to the curriculum coordinators, and we find they’re certain, too. They don’t care what we bring to the table, even if it’s the best information, the most pertinent research and the most brilliant arguments. It’s their table – not ours – and they’ll decide (thank you very much), what happens with it. Our evidence is swept off the table onto the floor. They walk over it on their way out. Later, it’s disposed of in an environmentally friendly way.

Sitting through certain interviews and meetings, listening to the idiocy that passes for argument (for example, “How do we know a 45% pass rate isn’t good? It all depends on where that group began”), I develop headaches, jaw aches and an upset stomach. I’ve had dark moments where I felt that nothing would ever improve, administrators would never listen, and parents should just grab their babies and run for the hills, as far away from the aliens as possible.

The obliviousness of the education establishment is impressive. The deceit and the covering up of the children’s reality are immoral, if not technically criminal. I’ve sat at my computer and blanched at the cheerful destruction of so many children’s futures.

Meanwhile, since 1989, the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) happily became “relevant” as they pushed their national standards. Across the country, school districts happily spent truckloads of taxpayer dollars chasing after every mangy, stray-dog program, and Texas Instruments (TI) and textbook publishers happily made enough money to wallpaper the moon at least twice in pretty thousand-dollar bills.

It’s all happening again. The National Governors Association (NGA) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) are the “new black,” pushing for new national standards (because it worked so well the last time). TI continues to deliver fancy calculators to wee tots, and textbook publishers and the College Board pant and salivate at being in on the ground floor of new national curricula and assessments.

Math advocates weren’t invited to this table, either, but who cares? I could sit at that table, lie down on that table, take off my clothes and dance the fandango on that table, and all of the deals would still be made – right next to my sweaty feet.

Math advocate Mike Miller said: “A culture that embraces purposeful perversion will be more resistant to both exposure and change.”

What if the purposeful perversion affects children’s futures and the stability of the country? At what point does it become evil?

Maybe the public-education establishment is already there. Maybe if we look up from our work long enough, we’ll see this for what it really is: An ongoing bloodless takeover by aliens.

Mark my words.

Please note: The information in this post is copyrighted. The proper citation is:
Rogers, L. (July, 2009). "Why administrators don't listen." Retrieved (date) from the Betrayed Web site: http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailing.blogspot.com/

This article also was published July 5, 2009, on Education News at http://ednews.org/articles/why-administrators-dont-listen-.html.

Students learn by being taught

2009-06-24T10:05:00.000-07:00

“How do you feel about putting students in AP classes for the exposure, even if they don't have the skills to succeed?”

I feel it’s a really stupid idea. It’s good to challenge students and have them reach beyond their comfort zone. But if they don’t have the skills to succeed in a class, why would we put them in the class? Unfortunately, this is policy in many public schools. Students supposedly benefit from “exposure” to material that’s way over their head. It’s thought to be OK if they don’t pass the class or even take the exams. I’ve been told several times: “They’ll learn just by being there.”

But what do they learn?

Administrators with an overabundance of training in education theory keep making perfectly obvious things murky. They claim, for example, that placing ill-prepared students in advanced math classes is helpful. They say it’s about “equity” and “opportunity.” It’s about “challenging” them. It’s "good" for their self-esteem. The policy also can make money for the schools, look good on spreadsheets and serve to mask the nature of what’s really going on in the classrooms.

But behind the mask, there is devastation.

Young children enjoy math and science. In America, this enthusiasm gets squished right out of many of them. By 4th grade, they’ve changed their minds forever. I place the blame squarely on reform mathematics. Reform math curricula deemphasize traditional algorithms; instead, students learn multiple “alternate” ways to solve problems. And “discovery” teaching models have them working in groups or pairs to teach concepts to each other.

“Traditional methods don’t work anymore,” parents are told. “Our kids need 21st-century skills.”
(Personally, I think that phrase is code for “Our kids need TI84 calculators.”)

Traditional math does work – every time. It helped build America. It doesn’t have a shelf life where it might curdle or grow moldy. It’s needed as much in the 21st century as it was in the 14th century. It isn’t one of “many acceptable alternatives.” For most students, it’s the best, most efficient, most effective method for learning mathematics. It’s necessary in college, businesses, trades, and STEM careers. It should be emphasized – taught first and then practiced. Yet, thanks to reform, most public-school children don’t become proficient in the arithmetic skills that are critical to their future.

When these children struggle in math, they might be given TI calculators to take the place of arithmetic. Instead of practicing skills, they might get lessons in how to pass standardized tests. When they’re bored, they might get extra sheets of busy work. When they’re frustrated, they might be sent into the hallway where they can’t bother anyone. Some are delivered, nicely wrapped, to behavioral or special education groups. And regardless of what anyone learns, nearly all will go to the next grade in the fall.

This is called “social promotion,” best defined in this way: “Students can fail the entire grade, learn less than nothing, actually fall farther behind than where they began, basically become mindless amoebas just taking up desk space and annoying their classmates and teachers – and they’ll still be passed to the next grade so that room can be made for the next class.”

Social promotion could work if students received tutoring or remedial help over the summer, but the vast majority is neglected entirely. The next fall, many are tagged – either with a “behavioral” or “special ed” tag, or perhaps just with a roll of the eyes, an averted gaze, and a “You won’t believe the class I have this year!” These kids continue to lurk in hallways, “special” classes and detention. They’re expected to work cooperatively with classmates to reinvent thousands of years of math – on their fingers, and with molding clay and pipe cleaners. Day, after day, after day. Plop on the forehead. Plop on the forehead… drip… drip…drip…

Since students have no training in special education or child psychology, and they lack the “professional development” teachers get, they fail to see how all of this is good for them. By 4th grade, they begin to tune out.

“I hate math,” I’ve heard 9-year-olds say. “I’m no good in math.” “My Dad can’t understand this.” “I can’t wait for recess.”

In middle school, there is usually more reform math. Behavior problems are blamed on society, “free will,” short attention spans, video games, parents, hormones or a sense of entitlement.
(I have heard all of these.)

When they get to high school, students are encouraged to take honors math and Advanced Placement math classes. The entire point of AP classes is to earn college credit while still in high school. Most universities and colleges won’t give credit for AP math classes unless students pass AP exams with a score of 3 or better. But high school students are encouraged to take AP classes even if they lack the requisite math skills.

“Let them eat cake,” administrators tell parents. No, I’m just being silly. Parents are told, “Students learn just by being there.”

As the students flounder in these classes, whatever bare shreds of dignity and self-esteem they have left are battered to death by a daily pounding of material that’s over their head. Their worst fears are realized: “Maybe I’m really not capable in math,” they fret. “Geez. Maybe I am stupid.”

A few struggle through the classes, thus fueling the administrator view that the policy works. Most sink into apathy or outright rebellion. In Spokane, 808 more AP exams were flunked in 2008 than in 2000. These flunkings don’t take into account the AP students who didn’t take AP exams or the AP students who dropped out of school altogether. (Currently, up to a third of our students will drop out before graduation.)

After they’re sufficiently tortured, high school seniors are eventually allowed to graduate without requisite math and science knowledge because retaining them isn’t “fair” to them.
(As if graduating them without the necessary skills is fair to them.)

In college, most want to run as far and as fast as they can from mathematics, but they need some form of college math to get a degree. Up to 95% test into remedial math. Many require remediation in arithmetic.

The bad news continues. College math classes go fast. There is little time to practice. Some students have to take remedial classes more than once in order to pass. As they struggle, give up, or drop out – they’re blamed yet again. I watched students drop like flies from a remedial algebra class, and the instructor explained it this way: “Students just don’t want to learn.”

Instead of becoming the engineers, mathematicians, scientists and tech specialists this country desperately needs, these students head into other fields that don’t require a whole lot of math classes. Like education.

And thus, the circle is complete – a betrayal of trust from elementary school all the way through college. Think how much these students could have learned, had they been in the right class with the right material and an efficient teaching approach.

Doesn’t it make you angry?

There are a few specks of sanity out there, but not many. Most students don’t have access to the specks. They’re pushed, prodded, poked, analyzed, assessed and – ultimately – blamed. Many give up, tune out, and move beyond our reach forever.

What to do about it? Well, here’s the good news. The easiest, most productive thing we can do to fix remediation rates, dropout rates, enrollment drops, and the entire “math problem” is to just start teaching the children properly. It’s easy. “Obvious,” you could say. But the education establishment is – for the most part – unwilling. Proponents of reform mathematics and discovery teaching models appear determined to believe in them, despite all contrary evidence – until they die. Parents must do it then – find a way to provide their children with the needed math skills.

Math doesn’t have to be torturous. It isn’t scary or bad; it’s logical and interesting. It’s a helpful tool. Taught properly – directly, with a logical progression of skills and time for practice – most of the children will learn it.

And I promise you – they’ll take it from there.

Please note: The information in this post is copyrighted. The proper citation is:
Rogers, L. (June, 2009). "Students learn by being taught." Retrieved (date) from the Betrayed Web site: http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailing.blogspot.com/

This article was published June 25, 2009, at EducationNews.org at http://ednews.org/articles/students-learn-by-being-taught.html

National standards, national curriculum dangerous

2009-06-09T15:43:00.000-07:00

After a 2007 U.S. Department of Education (DoE) report indicated differences among the various states as to what constitutes academic “proficiency,” Sec. of Education Margaret Spellings sent a letter to The Washington Post to express her concerns that some people might be tempted to press for a national curriculum (2007c).

That would be “unprecedented and unwise,” Sec. Spellings wrote. Not only are national standards not necessarily “synonymous” with high standards, they might actually lower the standards while doing little “to address the persistent achievement gap.” Additionally, she noted, forcing one curriculum on all 50 states would contradict both tradition and the American Constitution, which places most responsibilities for education in the hands of state and local governments and administrators.

“They design the curriculum and pay 90 percent of the bills,” Sec. Spellings said. “Neighborhood schools deserve neighborhood leadership, not dictates from bureaucrats thousands of miles away.”

Ah, the irony. Some see NCLB as a “dictate” from “bureaucrats thousands of miles away.” But the comment got me thinking. Would national standards or curricula result in equity? Would they be good for students? Would they be good for the country?

A few years ago, Washington State administrators floated the possibility of developing statewide mathematics curricula. State legislators took the first step in 2007 by requiring the superintendent to choose math and science curricula that would align with the soon-to-be revised learning standards. The legislation reassured districts they wouldn’t be required to adopt the curricula, but it left the legal door open:

“However, the statewide accountability plan adopted by the state board of education … shall recommend conditions under which school districts should be required to use one of the recommended curricula. … ” (“Certification,” 2007, p.3-4).

Washington State’s standards rewrite and curricula assessments did go the way I wanted them to go – toward more traditional content. At the moment, as our children continue to choke on reform curricula, it’s tempting to wish that districts would be forced by law to adopt state-selected curricula. But the concept gives me pause.

What if the revised standards had instead continued to emphasize reform math? What if the state-selected curricula had all been reform? What if proponents of reform mathematics managed to fill every administrative and legislative seat and nothing was the way I wanted it to be? Reform could happen all over again. It probably will.

Districts must always be able to choose alternatives. Parents and students must always be able to compare procedures and results against something from the outside. Dissent is necessary to keeping any system honest and strong. That’s why I’m worried about current trends toward national education standards and a national curriculum.

National Standards:

In June 2009, the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, and the Council of Chief State School Officers – in partnership with Achieve, Inc.; ACT and the College Board – announced an initiative to develop national learning standards (“Forty-nine,” 2009). Washington State is one of 49 states and territories to have already signed on to this initiative – despite the $1.6 million Washington just spent revising its own K-12 mathematics standards.

This is purportedly a “grass-roots” initiative, but Sec. of Education Arne Duncan and the Department of Education reportedly support the initiative (Levine, 2009). How “grass-roots” can it possibly be?

Any concerns are already too late. Decisions have been made. People have been chosen. The initiative was formally announced June 1, 2009 -- along with plans to release “college and career ready standards” in July 2009. That’s either really fast work, or they’ve been on this for a while. Quietly. Behind the scenes. In secret. I’ve seen little about this in the media. I can find nothing about it on the DoE Web site. Washington State signed on to the initiative with barely a whisper to the public. This has not been a particularly public process.

Who are these people? I’d like to know their backgrounds and get a sense of their leanings. The NGA declined to give out names until July. The San Francisco Chronicle called that “a wise decision," adding that "A truly open process would result in the experts being lobbied by countless interest groups, and – given the still-controversial nature of national standards – it could torpedo the plan altogether.”

Wow. A newspaper is championing secrecy. So much for the fourth estate.

Perhaps a truly open process would result in people finding out which special interests are already lobbying these “experts,” or maybe it would uncover some inappropriate backgrounds for some of the “experts.” A truly open process could indeed torpedo the plan altogether, as perhaps it should.

The NGA press release says there will be an “expert validation committee” “composed of nationally and internationally recognized and trusted education experts who are neutral to – and independent of – the process.” The words sound so good. Expert, recognized, trusted, neutral, and independent. Then again, we always hear those sorts of words. In 1999, the DoE assured us that reform curricula were “exemplary,” chosen by a team of mathematics and education “experts.” Look how that turned out. I doubt many “education experts” are actually “neutral” or “independent.”

Hey, I have some questions. What happens if Washington’s learning standards are weakened again? How will parents know? Against what will we compare them? How will contrary philosophies and commercial products survive – competing as they’ll be with well-connected organizations and companies, exceptionally savvy marketers, and the U.S. Department of Education?

National Curriculum:

Reportedly, Sec. Duncan also supports a national education curriculum (Levine, 2009). Again, as of June 2009, I can find nothing about it on the DoE Web site, but in May, while touting Tough Choices and Tough Times (two pilot programs that could form the basis for a DoE program called Race to the Top), Sec. Duncan reportedly said that not having a national curriculum is “crazy.” Steven Levine of Business Week writes:

“Both Duncan and the Tough Choices members steer carefully around the phrase "national education" … Yet that’s clearly where the Administration is headed. Duncan wants to nudge the winning states toward agreeing on rigorous, shared curricula that could spread across the country. ‘The idea of 50 states doing their own thing I think is crazy,’ Duncan says. Race to the Top is a way ‘to say to a set of states, 'You lead the national conversation. You do this.'’”

Perhaps if I were the author or publisher of K-12 curricula, or I sold commercial products related to education, such as calculators, for example, I’d be watching these developments closely. I’d want to be involved behind the scenes, working with allies and friends to sway things to my best advantage. It would just be good business, right?

On the Texas Instruments (TI) Web site, I found multiple links to papers from the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). Coincidentally, the CCSSO is a partner in the aforementioned national standards initiative. The CCSSO and TI also have been partners for a while. One TI link is to a joint CCSSO/TI paper from 2005 titled “Standards-Based Foundations for Mathematics Education: Standards, Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment in Mathematics.” The paper says:

“In an effort to explore new ways of improving mathematics education in middle and high schools, the Council of Chief State School Officers and Texas Instruments formed a Technology Research and Development Advisory Committee (“R&D Committee”) in the spring of 2004. This R&D Committee, consisting of state deputy superintendents or commissioners, district superintendents, and CCSSO staff, met in April 2004 to examine ways in which business and education can work together to build models that will enhance mathematical literacy” (Stumbo & Lusi, 2005a).

Another TI link is to a joint CCSSO/TI paper from 2005 titled “Why Isn’t the Mathematics We Learned Good Enough for Today’s Students?” The paper says:

“This partnership will investigate the influences on mathematics education and develop recommendations for effective state actions to lead to improved student performance in mathematics” (Stumbo & Lusi, 2005b).

Hmm. This national standards initiative is looking less “grass-roots” all of the time. I’m sad to tell you that’s not all. Remember the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM)? This group ushered in the “Standards” on which reform math programs claim to be based. Its former presidents have written or helped develop several of the reform curricula we have now. In a June 2009 press release, the NCTM speaks glowingly about the prospect of national standards. It also speaks hopefully about a national curriculum.

(Oo. Just got a cold shiver.)

The NCTM takes care – as does the NGA – to specify that national initiatives would be “voluntary.” But there is very little about the standards and curricula we have in Spokane that’s “voluntary.” The only “voluntary” part is where parents can voluntarily leave the district if we don’t like it.

So far.

At the moment, parents have the right to reject any part of their state’s standards or district curriculum and teach their children at home. Occasionally, some folks try to take away parents’ right to do this. Sec. Duncan supports charter schools, but what if the push for national standards and curricula weakens parents’ right to choose other kinds of alternatives? What if the national support for one curriculum drives other curricula (perhaps curricula preferred by parents) out of business? Already the parent voice is weak – even at the district level. How strong could it be at a national level? Which of us could be heard over the clamor of well-heeled interests such as the NSF, the NCTM, the Dana Center, the NGA, Achieve, Texas Instruments, and the College Board?

I worry that, ultimately, standards, tests and curricula will become streamlined in a happy little U.S.-government-led, taxpayer-funded row. Pretend scores will rise, certain businesses will make tons of money, and administrators will be happy, happy, happy – but the devastating gaps in what our children know will just be better hidden from sight. Any time the doors close and shades are drawn, I start wondering: “Where is the Accountability?” Even if these shadowy faces manage to create perfect national standards and curricula that allow our children to rise to the top of the international food chain, they – and their creations – won’t last forever. What happens then? Once we have national standards and curricula, we will never ever get rid of them.

State, district and especially parent rights must be preserved – for the people. Our children depend on educators to provide them with a proper education, but their minds and their futures are our ultimate responsibility. Parents must take back the reins of their children’s education. They must go beyond the revolving door of standards and curricula, beyond the lame-duck standardized tests, beyond the parsed and handpicked statistics. They must go beyond the teachers, beyond administrators and beyond the useless school boards. They must find a way to determine what their children should know versus what they do know, take steps to fill in the gaps, and stay on top of things until their children graduate.

Based on what I’ve seen and heard, an increasing number of parents are doing exactly that.

Please note: The information in this post is copyrighted. The proper citation is:
Rogers, L. (June, 2009). "National standards, national curriculum dangerous." Retrieved (date) from the Betrayed Web site: http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailing.blogspot.com/

This article was published June 11, 2009, on EducationNews.org at http://ednews.org/articles/national-standards-national-curriculum-dangerous.html

Board vote good for future business

2009-05-30T09:12:00.000-07:00

Some things are so outrageously ridiculous, the only way to handle them is through satire.

Like, for example, at a May 27 board meeting for Spokane Public Schools, board members voted to spend another $90,000 of taxpayer money on materials from the same failed reform curricula we have now. For a few tense moments, I was worried they wouldn’t, but at 11 p.m., they came through for me.

To quote a 5th-grade teacher who spoke on behalf of the proposed supplements: “Yay!”

Some people see reform math as a problem, but for me, it’s the solution. For one thing, it gives me something to do. I now spend 4-11 hours a day on math: Tutoring my daughter in actual math; taking college math classes so I can tutor her through high school; keeping up with developments at the state and national levels; and communicating every day with dozens of concerned parents and advocates. It’s a lot to do, which is good because otherwise, I would just sit around like the illiterate slob I am, eating Twinkies and playing video games.

But mostly, when I finish my math classes, I’ll have a HUGE pool of clients for my future tutoring business. The May 27 vote was VERY good for me personally.

I have to say it was touch and go that night. I thought when a cardiologist and a retired mathematician spoke eloquently for better math instruction, it might have swayed the vote. Luckily, most of the BM weren’t listening.

(BM is short for “board members.” What did you think it meant?)

When a local parent spoke about her daughters' struggles with basic math skills – like measurements – I worried again. Not because of the parent’s well-articulated concerns, but because Spokane’s elementary curriculum coordinator, Debbie Oakley, bobbled it and blamed the girls’ struggles on traditional math. How stupid was that? I doubt Spokane's current students have gotten more than a whiff of traditional math in the last 8 years.

Thankfully, the BM just let it go.

I spoke at the meeting, too, pretending I wanted better curricula and offering the board information from state and federal levels. It was all a ruse, part of my master plan. I knew the BM wouldn’t look at the information before the vote, wouldn’t ask me questions about it, wouldn’t even wonder out loud what was in the package. And they didn’t. President Rocco Treppiedi waved the information away to a side table where it sat like the lump of dog doo it was. (Some of the BM might even have held their noses.)

Ms. Oakley almost wrecked it again when she said, “There’s just nothing out there that aligns better to the new math standards.” How stupid was that? Not one of Spokane’s main curricula is ON the final lists of recommended curricula. Everything aligns better than they do. Two weren’t even on the preliminary lists – and those were lists drawn up by people who support reform. How bad must reform curricula be when supporters of reform don’t support them?

But the BM just let it go.

Oh yeah, and then one intelligent board member challenged Ms. Oakley on one of the proposed materials, saying it doesn’t do much of what she said it does and doesn’t seem to be necessary. Ms. Oakley had no defense for that, no support, no explanation, no clarification. I might have heard her mutter, “The dog ate my homework,” but that might have been the 5th-grade teacher behind me, who left her seat beside the curriculum coordinators to advocate for the proposed materials. The teacher's entire argument consisted of, “Come to my house and I’ll give you Brownies.” No, I think she said, “Come to my classroom and see what we’re doing.” And she took a swipe at me, which I did not appreciate. I thought, “Hey, don’t swipe at me! We’re allies! On the same side! We’re both doing this for the kids! You have them muddle in herds to teach themselves box and whisker plots, and then I’ll charge their families a lot of money to tutor them in arithmetic and algebra. We could be a great team!”

Yay!

Come to think of it, the person talking about dogs and homework might have been Rick Biggerstaff, Spokane’s secondary curriculum coordinator. He couldn’t remember who wrote the national standards on which he claimed Washington’s new standards are based. I offered him a suggestion, and – without looking at me – he muttered something that sounded like, "That could be it." Or, he might have said, “Shut up, you inconsequential idiot parent person, you dog-face daughter of a wallaby.”

If he'd said that, I would have said, “Look, don’t call me that. We’re allies. You LOVE Core-Plus Mathematics. 'LOVE it!' you said. And I’m going to LOVE the money I’m going to make in my future tutoring business. We’ll go great together, like peanut butter and food allergies.”

Mr. Biggerstaff nearly gave away the farm when he said other countries (almost all of which do better in math than America does) are perplexed at our "math wars," and they say, “What is America doing?” I was afraid the BM would laugh out loud at the unintended irony. Other countries do look at America, at how we teach mathematics, and they do say, “Woo-hoo! More jobs for us!”

But the BM didn’t note the irony, and my future tutoring business was saved again.

(I didn't even mind it when Mr. Biggerstaff was rude to me. When I left to thank the mathematician for coming, he rushed out behind us and interrupted me so he could shake the man’s hand. He never once looked in my direction or apologized for interrupting. My grandma always said, “You can tell a lot about folks by their manners,” but I know Mr. Biggerstaff is much more important than I am.)

I was glad I could crawl my way home at 11:30 p.m. and tell my husband the evening wasn’t a complete waste, as he had predicted.

For one thing, I met the cardiologist and the mathematician. I also got to see Ms. Oakley and Mr. Biggerstaff in action – an invaluable experience. And I totally figured out how to game the system. These people now think I’m opposed to Spokane’s ridiculously flawed reform math curricula. They see it as their turf, not mine. The harder I rally people to fight against it, the harder they’ll fight to defend it. It’s just human nature for bureaucrats and other uncivilized groups. This can only help me.

I’ll say: Please reject these failed curricula. And they’ll continue to say, “No."
I’ll say: Please just look at this material. They’ll say, “No.”
I’ll say: Please learn something about mathematics. “No.”
Please help me figure out a way to tutor these children in arithmetic. “No.”
I’ll do it for FREE. “No.”
Please wait on voting until you read this. “No, no, no.”
Please show me some infinitesimal sign of respect. “Well, sure, whatever-your-name is. Come back anytime.”

To the parents, I apologize. I’m sorry you’ll have to pay huge bucks to re-educate your children. I’m sorry that (unless they’re in the one-third of students who will drop out of high school before they graduate) they’ll have to spend several semesters in remedial math classes in college (which many will fail). I’m sorry that most of them will hate math for the rest of their lives and run as far away from it as they can. But that’s the way the box-and-whisker plot bounces. I have to eat, too. If you’re so mad, start your own tutoring business. It’s not like there won’t be enough work to go around. It would also give you a good reason to stay in your school district, unlike the 2,000+ quitters who bailed out of Spokane Public Schools over the last few years.

I have big dreams that require ill-educated students. Together, we can turn this very real and very serious math problem into a real business opportunity. With reform curricula in our corner, we’re totally in the catbird seat.

My new motto is: “Too bad for the little birdies, but darn good for the cats.”

Yay!

Please note: The information in this post is copyrighted. The proper citation is:
Rogers, L. (May, 2009). "Board vote good for future business." Retrieved (date) from the Betrayed Web site: http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailing.blogspot.com/

This article was published May 31, 2009, on EducationNews.org at http://ednews.org/articles/school-board-vote-good-for-business.html

FACT: Spokane refuses to replace reform curricula

2009-05-22T13:27:00.000-07:00

On Wed., May 27, Spokane Public Schools employees are slated to address the school board about proposed teaching materials for mathematics. The materials reportedly are a continuation of one of the three main math curricula already in place. The three main curricula are:

Investigations in Number, Data, and Space
Connected Mathematics Project (CMP)
Core-Plus Mathematics

These three curricula are “reform,” which means they focus on estimation, group discussions, lots of writing, frequent use of calculators, and multiple ways of solving problems. They downplay the need for practicing skills and also the use of “traditional” procedures and equations. They emphasize constructivist approaches (“discovery”) where students work in groups and on their own to try to teach math to themselves.

They do not focus on practicing the most efficient, most effective algorithms (which are necessary for advancing in math, and needed in college, business and the trades).

Reform curricula have been criticized in the mathematics community for the last 20 years. Two decades ago, people with products to sell ushered in the philosophy behind these curricula, and money continues to drive K-12 math instruction. Texas Instruments, various software developers, textbook publishers and other stakeholders have worked intensively and cooperatively to push reform curricula and attendant supplementary materials and “helpful” tools on an unsuspecting public. The reform approach to math plays a huge role in why America’s math skills have fallen so far behind the rest of the world. America’s businesses, universities and government agencies are forced to draw heavily from other countries for their talent pools.

But many people were not fooled.

FACT: For years, parents, math teachers, professors, business owners, STEM professionals (science, technology, engineering and math), and math advocates have fought for a more traditional approach to teaching mathematics.
FACT: In 2008, the National Mathematics Advisory Panel called for more traditional content and increased rigor across the nation.
FACT: In 2007, a consultant hired by the Washington State Board of Education (at the behest of the state legislature) assessed Washington’s math standards. The consultant called for major revisions, including a great deal more traditional content, increased rigor, and caution on the use of calculators in the classroom.
FACT: New, more rigorous math standards were developed in Washington State. The state department of education (OSPI), board of education (SBE) and advisory panels used the new standards to compile a list of recommended K-8 math curricula. These curricula use a more traditional approach. Spokane's main math curricula are not on the list.

Meanwhile, Spokane Public Schools has continued to replace one reform curriculum with another. This approach has been an expensive failure.

FACT: Spokane’s current reform math curricula are heavily supplemented by a long list of expensive materials and by ongoing “professional development” for teachers, “instructional coaches” for teachers, substitute teachers and remedial programs.
FACT: Spokane’s full-time enrollment has dropped by about 2,000 students since 2001 (mostly from the high schools). Administrators predict another drop of 350 this year.
FACT: A 2008 survey of parents who left for a different public school indicated that at least 33% left in whole or in part over the curricula. (The survey didn’t include families who chose a private school.) Spokane’s superintendent said this survey doesn’t tell her anything that “informs” her “decision-making.”
FACT: In 2008, the number of Spokane students passing the 2008 math WASL dropped grade by grade until just 45.9% of 10th graders passed.
FACT: Achieve, Inc. says Washington’s 10th-grade math WASL is based on content that is taught internationally in 6th or 7th grade.
FACT: Washington State has a reported 50% + math remediation rate in college. According to the dean of the math department at Spokane Falls Community College, new students have about an 80% remediation rate for math.
FACT: I've spoken with recent Spokane high school graduates who struggle with basic math skills. They tend to feel dependent on their calculators, to lack number sense, to think they’re bad at math, and to avoid career choices that involve math. Some must take remedial classes in arithmetic. Many must take remedial classes more than once in order to pass.
FACT: In February, Superintendent Nancy Stowell and Bridget Lewis, executive director of Instructional Programs, indicated to the Spokane school board that they don’t know how to fix the math problem.
FACT: In mid-April, I wrote to Ms. Lewis and two of Spokane’s curriculum coordinators. I noted that Spokane’s main math curricula don’t align with the new state math standards and aren’t recommended by the state or by the math advisory panels. I asked why this district is not replacing its inadequate curricula with curricula that better align to the state’s math standards. After my four polite emails and my polite phone call, I haven’t received an answer to this reasonable and not-too-difficult question.

What the students need is the proper tool for the job - better curricula from kindergarten to Grade 12. They need to be taught, rather than being forced to muddle around in groups, trying to teach math to themselves. They need to learn the most efficient method first, rather than being forced to learn several inefficient ways first. They need to be able to practice their math skills so that these skills go into long-term memory and can be easily recalled.

Spokane will not be replacing its inadequate curricula this year. There are plans to shuffle these failed curricula around a bit … like moving a dirty mop around the floor, hoping it will clean better over there. Now, there reportedly are plans to add more materials from two of the failed programs!

FACT: Better curricula are available. They include proven methods for teaching mathematics to children that have stood the test of time. They align better with the new math standards. They’ve been vetted by OSPI, the SBE and various professionals with strong backgrounds in mathematics.
FACT: Spokane Public Schools is refusing to adopt any of them.

(It's somewhat like watching people willfully cause a traffic accident.)

I'm asking you to attend the May 27 board meeting and ask for the adoption of better math curricula. By law, the board’s meeting time, place and agenda is to be listed here at least 24 hours before the meeting: http://www.spokaneschools.org/Board/MeetingDates.stm

This isn’t a game we're playing. The children's futures are at stake. Parents should not have to supplement the regular program, pay for private school, or teach their children a separate math curriculum at home. They should not have to pay for several remedial college classes. High school graduates should not have to spend several semesters desperately trying to pick up the math they should have learned in K-12. We should expect district employees to do “due diligence” and pay attention to what's being said at the state and federal level relative to mathematics instruction. We should expect the curriculum coordinators to listen when parents ask for something better for their children. Parents should expect to be included in discussions about curricula choices. But in Spokane – despite all contrary evidence – curriculum coordinators persist in supporting and buying teaching materials based on inadequate programs.

If you can't attend the May 27 board meeting, please write to the board and express your views. Ask them to ensure that the district immediately implements curricula that are aligned with the new math standards, to reject the failed reform curricula we have now, and to offer all students the tutoring they need to bring them up in skill to where they should and could have been.

Thank you for standing up to be counted. Please pass on this message to others. Together, we can turn this thing around.

Please note: The information in this post is copyrighted. The proper citation is:
Rogers, L. (May, 2009). "FACT: Spokane refuses to replace reform curricula." Retrieved (date) from the Betrayed Web site: http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailing.blogspot.com/

A version of this article was posted May 23 at ednews.org at http://ednews.org/articles/fact-spokane-refuses-to-replace-reform-curricula.html

What's the education budget for lawsuits?

2009-04-10T14:51:00.000-07:00

In Spokane Public Schools, the main approved mathematics curricula are:

Bridges in Mathematics
Investigations in Number, Data, and Space
Connected Mathematics
Core-Plus Mathematics

These curricula are reform, which means they focus on conceptual learning, group discussions, lots of writing, frequent use of calculators and multiple ways of solving problems. They downplay the use of “traditional” procedures and equations, and they emphasize constructivist approaches (“discovery” learning) where students work in groups and on their own to teach themselves.

Reform curricula have been heavily criticized in the mathematics community for the last 20 years. The four used in Spokane should be replaced immediately with curricula that guide students to competence in pre-college mathematics. But – based on minutes from recent school board meetings and my conversations with central office staff – it seems there won’t be any major replacements for 2009/2010. There are plans to shuffle the four curricula around a bit … kind of like moving a dirty mop around the floor, hoping it will clean better over there. Bridges is being replaced by Investigations, Investigations is being replaced by Connected Mathematics, and Connected Mathematics is being replaced by Core-Plus. Additionally, these curricula are heavily supplemented by other materials. The list of district-approved supplementary materials is long, I was told. I couldn’t get any of the titles over the telephone.

Rick Biggerstaff, the high-school curriculum coordinator, wrote to confirm that Spokane's "middle school program uses and will continue to use" Connected Mathematics. He added: "We are making recommendations for materials to complete our middle-school program for next year." He said the recommendations would be clarified in May.

It's an interesting word choice. Instead of saying "complete," he could say "to supplement," as in "to support with extra materials because Connected Mathematics is insufficient, inadequate and confusing as all get out." Or something like that.

Biggerstaff confirmed that Spokane high schools use Core-Plus and College Preparatory Mathematics (which is another reform program that's been criticized for years). He said changes in the high school program would have to wait until the state finalizes its decisions. But the state has finalized decisions about the K-8 recommendations, and Spokane's K-8 curricula aren't on the list -- yet Spokane is still using them. So is the district really waiting for the state, or is this just a convenient excuse to do nothing? What's the real hold-up? Why isn’t Spokane replacing its reform math curricula?

You know it isn’t about money. A lot of the money floating around this district is spent on central-office administrators and other things that don’t have a direct and positive impact on the classroom. If a school district can’t find the money for a proper curriculum – the entire point of its existence – it really ought to just shut the doors and send everyone home.

You know it isn’t about waiting for guidance. Parents, teachers and professors have been asking for a more traditional approach to teaching mathematics. In 2008, the National Mathematics Advisory Panel called for a more traditional approach. In 2007, a consultant said Washington’s math standards were weak and called for a more traditional approach. Over the last two years, the state department of education (OSPI), the state board of education (SBE) and various math advisory panels used the new, more rigorous standards to compile a list of recommended K-8 math curricula. These curricula use a more traditional approach.

Spokane’s main high-school math curriculum – Core-Plus – is barely clinging to OSPI’s preliminary list of high-school recommendations. Core-Plus was chosen over better curricula just so that a reform program could be on the list. Advocates are fighting to remove it. Bob Dean (math department chairman of Evergreen High School; and member of the State Board of Education Math Advisory Panel, the OSPI Standards Revision Team, and the Where’s the Math? Executive Committee) had this to say about Core-Plus:
“The whole purpose for having precise standards and state recommended curricula was to make sure that all Washington students are being taught the same mathematics. That mathematics was supposed to be equivalent to what top international countries are using.

“The issue isn't about using Integrated curriculum… It's about using integrated curricula that are so misaligned to the state standards that a Core 1 student can't even pass an Algebra I test. In fact, Core Plus students don't learn all of Algebra I until they have taken three years of Core math. There is no international curriculum that doesn't teach students the equivalent of Algebra I by the 9th grade. Japanese students are learning Algebra II in the 9th grade (I have their text books). Core Plus not only doesn't align to our standards, it leaves students far behind international standards.

“Instead of asking if it is fair that Core Plus students should have to take the same test as Algebra I students.... we should be asking is it fair that students are taking Core Plus at all? Watering down the standards should not be the solution. Core Plus students from Bellevue averaged 42% on the achieve Algebra II test.... Do we call that preparing students to compete in a global economy?”

Meanwhile, my husband and I are trying to do what’s best for our daughter. We aren’t afraid to say what needs to be said or do what needs to be done. Last winter, we rejected the Connected Mathematics curriculum. We’re using our time and money to teach our daughter the math she needs. We’re declining to have her take this year’s math WASL because it won’t be an accurate measure of what she’s learning. Sadly, this decision will have a negative impact on the scores for her school.

We’re faced with the prospect of Core-Plus in 2009/2010. We know the teacher will move mountains to teach Core-Plus in the best way it can be taught, but we also know the curriculum is seriously flawed and inadequate. And yet, there it will be next year. Why? Administrators must know there’s a problem. One third of Spokane students will drop out before graduation. Of the remaining students, most will need several discrete semesters of remediation in math before they even begin taking college math. Over the last eight years, about 2,000 students have left Spokane Public Schools – most of them from the high schools. In 2008, a survey of parents who left the district made it plain that at least a third of them left over dissatisfaction with the curriculum.

And yet, with respect to improving the math curricula, this district appears to be an immoveable force. Maybe administrators are stubborn; maybe they’re under a dark spell; maybe they just don’t know what they’re doing. What’s left to do? Sue them?

Hmm.

Dan Dempsey, SBE Math Advisory Panelist, recently wrote a letter to the directors of Seattle Public Schools, taking them to task for considering the adoption of reform math programs. He predicted parents would eventually say:

“My kid did not graduate because (Seattle) chose a math series that was rated as mathematically unsound and unacceptable by the state. (Seattle) has steadfastly refused to offer the effective interventions mandated in school board policies …, instead socially promoting my unskilled child to grade 9. In high school, the primary instructional math materials consisted of an unacceptable math program that offered nothing below Algebra I.”Dempsey asked, “How much is the district budgeting for lawsuits?”

I wonder.

Please note: The information in this post is copyrighted. The proper citation is:
Rogers, L. (April, 2009). "What's the education budget for lawsuits?" Retrieved (date) from the Betrayed Web site: http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailing.blogspot.com/

District says no one knows how to fix math problem

2009-03-25T20:19:00.000-07:00

Before I quote from the Feb. 11, 2009, meeting minutes of the board of Spokane Public Schools, I’ll review some events of the last two years:

The National Mathematics Advisory Panel issued recommendations that called for more traditional approaches to math instruction (i.e. traditional algorithms, caution with calculator use, more practicing of skills, and increased rigor).
Washington’s K-12 math standards were completely revamped, calling for more traditional content.
For 20 years, mathematicians have criticized the reform math curricula widely used across Washington (and throughout Spokane Public Schools). These curricula also were hammered in Washington’s recent curricula assessments.
Washington State’s Department of Education (OSPI) issued recommendations for K-8 math curricula that are based on the new standards. The curricula used in Spokane are not on the list. Expectations are that Spokane’s high school curriculum also will be rejected.
Advocates have repeatedly asked school boards across the nation to replace reform math curricula with more traditional curricula.

You get the gist. Spokane needs to adopt more traditional math curricula. Waiting only prolongs the students’ agony. The district already has recommendations for K-8 math curricula that were vetted by people who support a traditional track. All the board has to do is adopt some of them. Now I can quote from the Feb. 11 meeting minutes, located at http://www.spokaneschools.org/Board/minutes/02-11-09.pdf .

“NEW BUSINESS
Teaching and Learning Services
Middle School Math Update

Ms. Bridget Lewis, executive director for Teaching and Learning Services, introduced Ms. Gina Rye, middle school math coordinator, and Mr. Rick Biggerstaff, secondary math coordinator. … Ms. Lewis commented that the staff needs to dig deeper in terms of the grade 6 to 7 transition. President Treppiedi asked the staff to help the board understand why middle school math scores are as low as they have been. It was his opinion that there is a lack of rigor in the elementary schools. Ms. Lewis responded that the data across the state and nation is not unique to Spokane. She said no one has the answer; however, the staff does know that they have to pay close attention to what is happening in the classroom. She pointed out that the data shows that Spokane has more students taking advanced placement math and all students are taking more mathematics. … Dr. Stowell noted that grades 3 through 7 math scores are higher than the state average. In spite of not having all of the answers, the scores are moving in the right direction. She stated that math and science summer camps and math coaches would help, but it is difficult to fill the open teaching spots.
Ms. Lewis added that it is going to take multiple strategies such as standards-based grading, math labs, and professional learning in order to improve mathematics instruction. Director Douthitt indicated that the board would like to hear more ideas about adaptive changes. Director Bierman agreed that change takes time; he felt, however, that the math program is on the wrong track and needs to be distinctly different from what it is today, in both the language and the model that is used. Director Douthitt expressed appreciation for the way this presentation was constructed. He conceded that the frustration is that no one has figured out how to solve the problem. Because the district will still face the dilemma in 2014, he didn’t want the team to be constrained by saying 'we can’t do this.' Ms. Lewis said the team wants to look at this very straight forward and determine how to get at the hard questions.” I’ll offer some thoughts on certain portions of these meeting minutes.

“…the staff needs to dig deeper in terms of the grade 6 to 7 transition.”
What does this mean? Does it mean to replace the math curriculum? If not, they can “dig” as deeply as they want; they’ll never reach the solution.

“Ms. Lewis responded that the data … is not unique to Spokane.”
This statement is true, but it doesn’t mean an answer isn’t available. Indeed, it points to a national failure with reform math curricula.

"(Ms. Lewis) said no one has the answer; however, the staff does know that they have to pay close attention to what is happening in the classroom.”
Actually, we have the answer, and it’s clear: Replace the curricula with more traditional approaches. For some inexplicable reason, district employees obstinately refuse to say so.
It’s true that staff members should “pay close attention to what is happening in the classroom.” If they were, they would notice that students aren’t learning sufficient mathematics.

“(Ms. Lewis) pointed out that the data shows that Spokane has more students taking advanced placement math and all students are taking more mathematics.”
More students are indeed taking AP classes – please see http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailing.blogspot.com/2008/12/district-view-of-ap-classes-at-odds.html for proof that substantially more students also are failing to pass the AP exams.
I reject the statement that “all students are taking more mathematics.” Some might be taking more math classes, but if the classes were effective, students would know more math than they do.

“Dr. Stowell noted that grades 3 through 7 math scores are higher than the state average.”
So what? Spokane’s 2008 math WASL scores look like this:

Grade Level Math
3rd Grade - 75.2%
4th Grade - 60.7%
5th Grade - 69.2%
6th Grade - 55.9%
7th Grade - 52.4%
8th Grade - 49.5%
10th Grade - 45.9%

“(Dr. Stowell said) in spite of not having all of the answers, the scores are moving in the right direction.”
District staff members do have the answers; they just refuse to acknowledge them. You tell me – do the 2008 math WASL scores look like they’re “moving in the right direction”?

A few of the statements can be dealt with together: "(Dr. Stowell) stated that math and science summer camps and math coaches would help, but it is difficult to fill the open teaching spots.”

“Ms. Lewis added that it is going to take multiple strategies such as standards-based grading, math labs, and professional learning in order to improve mathematics instruction.”

“(Director Douthitt) conceded that the frustration is that no one has figured out how to solve the problem."

“Ms. Lewis said the team wants to look at this very straight forward and determine how to get at the hard questions.”

Shall we laugh or cry? It’s the curriculum, the curriculum, the curriculum! Replacing the reform curricula with more traditional approaches is what will improve mathematics instruction. Why won’t they say it?
One begins to wonder if some of these people own stock in companies that publish reform curricula.

Folks, this is what is being done on your behalf. Director Jeff Bierman appears to be almost alone in the district in speaking out on behalf of a better approach. Please add your voice to his and/or vote with your feet. Quite literally, the children’s futures are at stake.

Please note: The information in this post is copyrighted. The proper citation is:
Rogers, L. (March, 2009). "District says no one knows how to fix math problem." Retrieved (date) from the Betrayed Web site: http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailing.blogspot.com/

Your child's education is up to you

2009-03-21T07:01:00.000-07:00

Over the last 27 months, I’ve come to see public education as an immoveable force. Administrators are fond of talking about “accountability,” but it doesn’t mean much, not in any real sense. Today's administrators know that all they have to do is produce upward ticks in pretend numbers. The only real accountability comes when unhappy parents leave the school district. Although a few thousand Spokane families have done that over the last five years, local administrators have so far declined to say publicly that the enrollment drops have anything to do with how the schools operate.

Meanwhile, things stay fairly quiet, which is what bureaucrats generally prefer.

My comments here could be seen as “cynical” or “critical,” but I see them as “realistic.” With realism comes truth. With truth comes knowledge. With knowledge comes power. With power comes change – even if it’s change for just one child. When it’s your child, one child is a lot.

My husband and I have therefore taken control of our daughter’s education. We now know it isn’t enough to just be involved in the school or the classroom; we need to know what she’s learning. We also must have some idea of what she should be learning. When the school curriculum or learning environment fails her, we must fill in critical gaps. This isn’t a game we’re playing. Her future is at stake. Six short years from now, it won’t matter whether we helped out with field trips or cut paper for the class every Friday. What will matter is the knowledge she takes with her to college.

Although several people in this district care about our daughter – most notably her teachers and principal – no one at the district level has expressed even a sliver of interest in what kind of experience she must have had that would lead me to do an intense and focused two-year investigation of public education. To them, I’m sure she’s just a bit of data in a long string of data. I doubt they know who I am. Over two years, I've interviewed three curriculum coordinators, two board members and other sundry district staff. I’ve sat down with district Superintendent Nancy Stowell and asked her pointed questions. I’ve written about Dr. Stowell on my blog and run into her a half a dozen times at various meetings. She still introduces herself to me as if we've never met. Clearly, she doesn’t feel the need to retain any information about me or my concerns.

Over 27 months, I've come to believe I could be brilliant, have the best research, find the most perfect words and fill up school board meetings with the most knowledgeable people – and administrators would still operate as if I don’t exist. If I ever manage to effect positive change in this district, I have no doubt that the minute I turn my back, someone will begin working to erase it.

I have two main goals now:

Help parents cut through the fake statistics and “edu-speak” so they can see things more clearly.
Tutor students in math. I looked into earning an education degree, but colleges of education tend to train teachers by using discovery learning methods and reform philosophy. I'm 47 and a college graduate. I get hives at the thought of sitting in groups to hash out simplistic problems I could easily solve on my own. I’ve therefore chosen the math program over the education program.

In these two small ways, I hope to help the children succeed. I yearn for revolution, but perhaps some of the improvement will just have to come one person at a time.

Speaking of “one person at a time,” I received an email from a Spokane parent who is distressed by reform math. Last fall, an elementary-school teacher told her to not teach traditional math to her children. She wrote:

“Laurie … I have to tell you, I'm going through a kind of personal revolution right now. I've always felt that I was hindered by a lack of knowledge, betrayed, if you will, by my own public education, and would just sound ignorant if I spoke out on the things I felt strongly about (education, political issues, etc.), so I said and did nothing. Besides, I'm just one little suburban mother. What difference could I possibly make? I have long felt that the public education system has failed us as a nation, and that this is now more apparent than ever. I've been very concerned about the direction our nation is heading at such a rapid pace, so I've been educating myself on American history and government. For the first time in my life, I've been following the actions of the government, communicating to my representatives, and I'm 33 years old. My own public education didn't come close to preparing me to be an active, educated citizen in the community, let alone in the nation (yet I still cast my vote at every election). I've been compelled to educate myself and take a more active role. I just can't sit complacently by anymore, and I've realized that everyone who has a part in making a difference is just one person. It's only when voices speak out that they're heard. “I spent 13 years in public school, 2 years in community college, and 3 more at a state university, and I have always felt ignorant and uneducated! There is definitely something wrong there, and the last thing I want is for my kids to grow up that way, too. So, I offer no more excuses for being part of the problem. I want to be part of the solution, and I do feel that it all comes down to education. I thank you for doing your part to improve the state of education (and, therefore, the country) and I want to do mine as well, so count me in! “I did go to bat for my own child last week, and I wish I had done it a year ago. (My son) has been complaining about school in general and math in particular. I think he's bored with the math in 1st grade and especially the pace of the class. Last year, I had the same issue with (my daughter) and (the teacher) danced around it, asserting that she was challenged in class in a variety of ways. My naive mistake was giving her the benefit of the doubt and not pushing any farther than bringing the issue up again at conference time. Last week, I went straight to (the principal). I have to say, I was very pleased with his reaction and the result. By the end of the day it was arranged (that my son) would go to (the next grade) for math. …”

This mother acknowledged, however, that the curriculum in the next grade is also insufficient, so she is tutoring her children in two traditional programs – “Singapore Math” and “Saxon Math.” She expressed concerns about the calculators in the elementary grades and wondered how I felt about it. I told her I’m opposed to introducing calculators in elementary school, that there is no need for it, and that it’s my belief that they interfere with the learning of necessary arithmetic skills. I asked the mother if I could quote from her email, and she said I could:

“I hope it can help encourage other parents to get involved or even just interested. One of the greatest things I took away from homeschooling was the attitude that my children's education is my ultimate responsibility, whether I choose homeschool, public school, or somewhere in between. That realization has been very empowering.”

I couldn’t have said it better.

Please note: The information in this post is copyrighted. The proper citation is:
Rogers, L. (March, 2009). "Your child's education is up to you." Retrieved (date) from the Betrayed Web site: http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailing.blogspot.com/

This article was also published at EducationNews.org at http://ednews.org/articles/35600/1/Your-Child039s-Education-is-Up-To-You/Page1.html

Free math assessments March 21

2009-03-12T08:51:00.000-07:00

On March 21, 2009, from 1-5 p.m., Education NW Resources will conduct free assessments in mathematics for students in grades 2-12. The assessments are intended to reflect essential math skills and international math standards. Each assessment will be about 30-45 minutes long, and will take place at Education NW Resources, 9429 N. Newport Highway, Spokane, WA.

“Our entire purpose is to educate parents on the existence of the new state math standards, and on how their children are doing with basic math skills,” Deborah Knutson said. “Our experience tells us that many students in the area have serious gaps in critical skills, and also that many parents are unaware of how wide those gaps are.”

Knutson noted that, in 2008, Washington State’s math standards were revised substantially, increasing their rigor and emphasizing more “traditional” algorithms and concepts. However, the Washington Assessment of Student Learning (WASL) doesn’t yet reflect these changes, and the planned “end-of-course” tests haven’t yet been implemented.

“We hope parents will take advantage of these assessments,” Knutson said. “They’re relatively short, they’re free, and they’ll give parents a better idea of where their children are in mathematical skill.”

Parents can call 323-4950 to register, or they can register at the door. Seating is limited, however. Please call to reserve a seat and a time.

Contact: Deborah Knutson
Education NW Resources
9429 N Newport Highway
Spokane, WA 99218-1245
Phone: (509) 323-4950
Fax: (509) 323-4950
Toll Free: (866) 491-0495

info@educationnwresources.com

What Is the Purpose of Public Education?

2009-03-05T14:03:00.000-08:00

Updated March 11, 2009:

Part of the barrier to getting proper math instruction into America’s K-12 public schools is in the definitions. What constitutes “success” or “failure”? Which math skills are “necessary”? What is the primary function of public schools? Why do children go to school?

I don’t think of “success” and “failure” in terms of what’s good for the administrators but in terms of what’s good for the students. In my view, a public school’s primary function is to help students get prepared for postsecondary life. Children go to school so they can learn what they need to learn in order to grasp the future they want. Based on test results, remediation rates and dropout rates, there’s no question in my mind that today’s public schools are failing the students.

Many administrators, on the other hand, appear to see the primary function of schools as being all about inclusion, tolerance, equity, values and (the omnipresent yet ill-defined) “excellence.” They probably see themselves as successful.

Don’t laugh. I’m not pulling this stuff out of my hat.

As part of our district’s January 2009 celebration of Martin Luther King Jr. Day, Spokane Superintendent Nancy Stowell sent a letter to her “colleagues” that included the text of her welcome address for the Unity March. In part, she said:
“We renew our commitment to acknowledging the effects of white privilege and doing all that we can to understand and mitigate its effects – so that each of us understands race in a personal and profound way.
“We renew (our) commitment to creating classrooms, schools, and a school district that is founded on the principles of social justice … a compassionate system that knows each child.
“We renew our commitment to the development of culturally proficient and courageous educators who can succeed with all students because they believe in the value of each student.”

Dr. Stowell didn’t mention creating classrooms that are founded on the principles of a coherent and rigorous education. She didn’t mention renewing the district’s commitment to hiring academically proficient educators who can succeed with all students because they know the subject matter they’re trying to teach.

(These would be great ways to mitigate the effects of ethnic disparities.)

Reading Dr. Stowell’s remarks, you’ll understand the continued existence of a poster still tacked to a bathroom wall in the elementary school just down the street from me, that says: “The aim of education is the knowledge not of facts but of values.”

When I talk about math, administrators talk about “equity.” I talk about college; they talk about “social justice.” I talk about challenging the children; they talk about “achievement gaps.” I ask for better mathematics curricula – part of the schools’ primary function – and they say there isn’t enough money.

Actually, there’s a ton of money; it just pays for things that are not part of the primary function. It also pays for myriad things that shouldn’t be in the schools at all.

Meanwhile, President Obama is planning to deliver to states about 44 billion in nonexistent taxpayer dollars over the next six weeks. This money is on top of an already bloated education budget. More billions are forthcoming. Unless that money fixes the lack of academic content in our public schools, it won’t improve public instruction – it will just make the ineffectiveness exponentially more expensive.

The primary function of public school is academics. It isn’t supposed to be cheap daycare. It shouldn’t be promoting socialist views or any other political agenda. Its primary job isn’t to teach values or ethics, to feed the children, provide teen mothers with daycare, teach English to “undocumented immigrants,” or turn out people who are personally and profoundly aware of “white privilege.” Its primary function is to effectively and efficiently teach all students to a high standard of academic knowledge that will ready them for college, a trade, business ownership, a political career or whichever postsecondary life they envision.

If public schools don’t do this – their primary job – they’re a waste of students’ time and of taxpayers’ money.

So far, the education bureaucracy appears to be largely unwilling to address the biggest problem facing our public schools: The lack of core academic content – in much of the teacher training, in much of the curriculum, and in the daily focus of the typical classroom.

Some parents are coping with the educational shipwreck by deciding that sloshing through the water is OK. “Maybe she doesn’t have to work that hard,” one parent said recently about her daughter. “Academics aren’t everything.”

Others seek academic excellence (or even just academic competence) for their children by choosing to homeschool or to supplement at home (as we do) or by heading to charter schools, magnet programs, faith-based schools, private schools or co-ops.

I support these decisions. There is no guarantee that alternative choices will provide children with the best education possible, but we must allow for the most basic right Americans have: The freedom to choose the process. We have the right to choose to fail, and we have the right to choose to excel. It’s that flexibility that has traditionally made America strong.

Until lately, the market has always guided success and failure. It’s always provided us with the motivation to dismantle failing structures. Now, government programs support massive, systemic failure – while excellence barely has a place to breathe. For parents and students, flexibility and the freedom to choose have been legislated and mandated almost right out of the public-education system.

Every child deserves the best possible education, but what does that really mean? A gentleman from Massachusetts recently asked me: "If you could start all over again and build a brand new public education system … what would it look like?” This is an excellent question, and I’ve been pondering it ever since. I’m interested in hearing your ideas. Please reply to this blog or email me at wlroge@comcast.net.

Let’s say the future of public education is open to you. What would you create?

Please note: The information in this post is copyrighted. The proper citation is:
Rogers, L. (March, 2009). "What Is the Purpose of Public Education?" Retrieved (date) from the Betrayed Web site: http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailing.blogspot.com/

Students Need Parents & Teachers To Speak Up

2009-02-26T19:44:00.000-08:00

On Feb. 25, 2009, Spokane’s school board hosted a “Coffee and Conversation” before its regular school board meeting. The public was invited to offer comment on topics of its choosing. A few dozen people attended; they offered comment on math, the bond and levy, and various district policies. It was a great start, but we need more from parents and teachers. Many of them know things are wrong; they've got to stand up and say so.

I asked for six things, including these:

Traditional mathematics curricula.
Spokane’s K-12 math curricula must be replaced with more traditional curricula. This should happen now, not in 18 years when the next wad of taxpayer money floats by. There is money to do this now; it’s just being spent on other things. The district could lay off a couple of $100,000 administrators and use their salary to buy traditional curricula.
Math tutoring.
Our students desperately require tutoring that’s based on a traditional approach (direct teaching, traditional algorithms, no calculators, little or no group work, a logical progression of concepts, and regular practicing of skills) so they can catch up to where they should have been. There are many ways to access this tutoring. Some of it might even be free.
Proper assessments.
An assessment is required to determine which math skills are missing. This assessment can’t be the WASL or SASL because neither is based on the new standards.
It won’t be pleasant to see the results of proper assessments, but the results will be truthful and accurate. With truth and accuracy, we’ll have some hope of filling in the gaps before the students try to graduate.

After the “Coffee and Conversation,” a cameraman asked me if I thought the district had been listening to its constituents. This is a tricky question. I’ve been researching public education since January 2007. I’ve interviewed dozens of people, including two school superintendents, a former curriculum director, a former board president and three curriculum coordinators. Despite the flood of evidence that ALL of our math curricula are seriously deficient, no central office employee has ever acknowledged it to me.

On the other hand, were administrators polite to me? Always. Did they accommodate requests for information and private meetings? Almost always. I presume they listened, but I think they didn’t agree with me, they wouldn’t say they agree with me, or they didn’t give a flip about what I said. I told the cameraman that administrators have always been polite and accommodating but didn’t appear to agree with me.

Spokane’s newest board member is Dr. Jeff Bierman, a physics professor at Gonzaga University. On Feb. 25, Dr. Bierman supported my comments, agreeing that the math curricula are weak and that changes need to be made. He said he chooses to supplement the instruction for his own children. That was the first time I heard anyone associated with the administration publicly acknowledge the curriculum problem.

The mistake would be to think this welcome support will change the math curricula. In January 2009, curriculum coordinators said they planned to recommend retaining two of our disastrous (reform) curricula for Grades 5 and 6. Although Dr. Bierman’s Feb. 25 comments were soon echoed by a parent, a high school math teacher and a college mathematician, he was the only board member or district employee at the meeting who spoke publicly in support of traditional mathematics.

What’s desperately needed is a firm push from parents and teachers. Supporters of reform math occupy the seats of power. Parents, students, teachers, college professors, tradespeople and businesspeople – we all have a vested interest in how well math is taught. This district has serious problems in mathematics that directly affect our families. It isn’t an exaggeration to call it a crisis.

Students are not learning the math they need to even begin college. They don’t have the math they need to get jobs that require arithmetic (much less algebra, geometry, trigonometry or calculus). Our high-school graduates will be competing against private-school students, homeschooled students, and students from places like Finland, Singapore, California and Massachusetts – most of whom will have enough mathematics for college. (More and more of those graduates are being accepted on Washington campuses, and there are only so many seats.) A solid math education will help students secure a future. This isn’t being extremist – this is being a realist. But it’s hard to get this message across.

I hear: “Well, I have to trust them.” (But trusting them put us here. Now, it’s time for scrutiny.)
I hear: “Life is short. There’s more to life than academics.” (True. But school isn’t “life.” School is supposed to be about academics.)
I hear: “The district is doing the best it can.” (If it were doing the best it could, things would be better than they are.)
I hear: “I don’t know anything about math, so I can’t comment.” (Most parents and teachers know when the children can’t multiply or divide. They can comment about that.)
I hear: “It will work itself out.” (It hasn’t “worked itself out” in 20 years. But if we participate, it might work itself out in time to benefit our children.)
I hear: “Not everyone will go to college. There are plenty of good jobs you can get without a college degree.” (True. Many of those jobs require math, however.) Observing my efforts to improve mathematics instruction in Spokane, my daughter called me Horton, as in “Horton Hears a Who.” “No one else seems to hear what you hear,” she said. “Whoville is floating away, and the children are stuck on it. No one can hear them except you.” What we need, she said, is a YOPP – a Dr. Seuss sound that makes people stand up and take notice. If we have a huge, loud and fabulous YOPP, she said, everyone would hear it.

I told my daughter about the mathematicians and advocates who are YOPPING, who have worked hard for decades to try and rid the country of the scourge of reform math. I told her how they’ve done research, presented evidence, gone to meetings, testified in legislatures, built Web sites and blogs, and written Letters to the Editor. “I’m not alone,” I said. “Across this entire country, many Hortons have been fighting for Whoville.”

“Then why haven’t things changed?” she wondered.

Why indeed. What do I tell her? That it’s easier and more convenient to turn our backs while the monkeys toss Whoville around? That many teachers won’t speak up for Whoville because they’re afraid they’ll get into trouble? That many parents won’t speak up because they’re too busy and distracted to hear or believe the message? That many school administrators will believe in reform math – despite all contrary evidence – until they die? That lots of them would rather not hear from us at all?

Parents and teachers: The time is now. This is the children’s future we’re talking about. They live in Whoville, and they’re being miseducated – betrayed – by math curricula that fail them – from kindergarten all the way through Grade 12. Please call the school board. Write letters. Talk to the principal. Attend school board meetings. Tell the board what you see in the classroom. Talk to the PTA or PTG. Say no to counterproductive math curricula. Opt out of the math WASL. Demand better materials. Supplement at home and in the classroom with traditional curricula. Get this critical issue out in the open.

I don’t know if it takes a village to raise a child, but I believe it’s going to take a village to push reform math curricula out of our schools. Give a great and mighty YOPP. Make them hear you. Help open career doors for the students. Help save Spokane's Whoville.

Please note: The information in this post is copyrighted. The proper citation is:
Rogers, L. (February, 2009). "Students need parents and teachers to speak up." Retrieved (date) from the Betrayed Web site: http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailing.blogspot.com/

This article was modified slightly and reprinted March 3, 2009, on Educationnews.org, at http://ednews.org/articles/34524/1/Students-Need-Parents-and-Teachers-To-Speak-Up/Page1.html

Help Improve Math Education in Spokane

2009-02-19T12:25:00.000-08:00

The Spokane Public Schools (SPS) Board of Directors is hosting a “Coffee and Conversation” – an open, two-way conversation with the public. Everyone is welcome.
When: Wednesday, Feb. 25, 2009, from 6-6:50 p.m., prior to the regularly scheduled board meeting at 7 p.m.
Where: The Ferris High School library, 3020 E. 37th Avenue.

I’m asking you to go to that meeting. Math education in Spokane is on the precipice of change, and it desperately needs a firm push in the right direction.

Parents, students, teachers, college professors, tradespeople and businesspeople – all of us have a vested interest in how well Spokane teaches our children. This district has serious problems in mathematics that directly affect your family.

Here are Spokane’s 2008 WASL results:

Grade Level	Reading	Math	Writing	Science
3rd Grade	72.6%	75.2%
4th Grade	76.9%	60.7%	63.1%
5th Grade	78.3%	69.2%		46.0%
6th Grade	71.5%	55.9%
7th Grade	63.3%	52.4%	66.1%
8th Grade	63.7%	49.5%		48.6%
10th Grade	80.5%	45.9%	85.0%	44.2%

Notice the pass rates for math and science. The math WASLs have long been criticized as being weak indicators of the math skills students need for postsecondary life, and yet fewer than half passed the 10th-grade test. Contrary to what I’ve heard administrators say, this is NOT the fault of the students or teachers. This is because of the reform math curricula used in Spokane: “Bridges in Mathematics,” “Investigations in Number, Data and Space,” “Connected Mathematics,” and “Core-Plus Mathematics.”

Welcome to your child’s future:

About a third of high school students are likely to drop out before graduation. Each year, dozens will leave SPS and graduate elsewhere. Of our graduates who choose college, about half will need four to six classes of remedial math (which can’t be taken concurrently) in order to pick up the math skills they don’t have. Many will decide math isn’t for them, and the door will be slammed shut on careers in engineering, medicine, technology, law, business, science and economics.

When our high school graduates decide against college, a trade or business, it won’t necessarily be because they aren’t capable. Some will just see how much math remediation they need, and they’ll decide that life is too short for more high school. This reality will be a cold shock to their parents, who watched them pass the math WASL, get "A"s in math and even head into honors math and Advanced Placement math classes.

Spokane Public Schools desperately needs at least three things in mathematics:

Proper math tests that tell us which skills are missing. The tests don’t have to be onerous or expensive. There are tests available now, and some are free.
Access to tutoring so that all students can get caught up to where they would have been had they been taught with better curricula. (Obviously, this tutoring should not be based on the same failed curricula and teaching methodologies.)
A more traditional track in mathematics from kindergarten through grade 12.

You might think these things are obvious, but I’ve seen a real reluctance in the district to acknowledge the weakness of reform math. In two years of asking questions all over the city, I’ve never heard any central office employee say it.

In the Feb. 10, 2009, online “Chat with the Superintendent,” I asked Superintendent Nancy Stowell about last year’s math WASL. I noted how the pass rates for mathematics dropped, grade after grade, until just 45.9% passed the 10th-grade math WASL. I asked her what this told her about the math instruction in Spokane. She said she thinks ongoing professional development for teachers is critical. Then, she said:

“Although our scores for grades three through 7 are significantly higher than the state average, we believe it is imperative that we continue to close the gap to standard for all of our students. We are definitely aware of the drop in scores at middle and high school. We are working to change that. Right now we making sure that we have materials that are aligned with the new performance expectations in math and we are continuing to provide professional development for our teachers.”

You might think her reply means the district plans to adopt more traditional curricula, but in the Jan. 14, 2009, school board meeting, a curriculum coordinator said that for grades 5-6, “The curriculum staff will be proposing a combination of different materials – three units of new “Investigations” and three units of “Connected Math.”

That is no change. “Investigations” and “Connected Mathematics” are used now. They’re both reform. They’re both inadequate and confusing. They're unlikely to help guide students to college math. They aren’t recommended by the state. They don’t align with the new math standards. They are failed programs. And yet here they are.

Clearly, a push is needed. I’m asking you to go to the “Coffee and Conversation” and ask for better math curricula. Help students build the skills they need for the future they want. This is your chance to make your wishes known. You might think you can always have two-way, open, public conversations with the school board, but it isn’t so.

Seize the day. Join me at the meeting. Tell them what you want to see happen. If you can’t go, please call the board members or write to them. Together, we can turn this thing around.

Meanwhile, please pass on this message to other interested parents, and if you have questions or comments, you can write to me at wlroge@comcast.net.

Thank you for your help.

Please note: The information in this post is copyrighted. The proper citation is:
Rogers, L. (February, 2009). "Help improve math education in Spokane." Retrieved (date) from the Betrayed Web site: http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailing.blogspot.com/

Teacher education programs part of the problem

2009-02-05T13:39:00.000-08:00

Up until high school, I enjoyed math. I thought I was good at it. Then, I hit Grade 11 math, and along with Grade 11 math came Mr. Anand.

Mr. Anand was Death to Math Enjoyment. He was a bright, personable, confident math teacher whose explanations were unintelligible to me. I couldn’t understand why I couldn’t get it. Hating the daily trauma of not understanding what we were doing, I began to skip the class. Eventually, I fell so far behind that the most logical course of action seemed to be to drop the course and graduate from high school without it. Mr. Anand’s class had tipped me over from “good math student” to “math dropout.”

A decade later, I enrolled in community college to pick up that math course. My community college teacher? Mr. Anand. After a few more months with Mr. Anand, I was again completely lost. I took a trig exam thinking I would ace it, and instead, I flunked it. When the stock market crashed, I gratefully accepted that as an excuse to drop the course. I was 30 years old, working in finance, and I hadn’t passed high-school math.

A year later, I had married, moved and enrolled in college. The math requirement worried me. I felt deep in my bones that I was good at math, but my experiences with Mr. Anand had spawned many doubts. Thankfully, Mr. Anand had not made his way to Tennessee. College math was fun, interesting and logical. I still enjoy math, although I’m quite unenthusiastic about Mr. Anand.

I tell you this story because I’m aware of how much difference teachers make. Teachers hold the keys to the future; their interest and skill can make or break the learning process. But the teaching profession – one of the more challenging professions out there – is complicated by the lack of core content in many teacher education programs. I’ve heard and read repeatedly about programs that are woefully light in content, that focus too much on how to teach and not enough on what to teach. It’s a shame, because common sense and research tell us that teachers who know core subjects – math, science, languages, civics and history – are better able to teach them to their students (Stotsky, n.d.; “Teaching,” 2004; “U.S. Department,” 2005, p. 3; “Teaching,” 2006).

Some educators believe they can pick up a well-written textbook and effectively teach that material even if they don’t know it themselves. The prevalence of this theory helps explain why math is so often taught as a game in which children work in groups to teach math to themselves. But I doubt the theory does hold true for math. As I tutor our daughter in algebra and geometry, it’s clear that she won’t understand it if I don’t.

The sad state of K-12 math instruction appears to be intentional. In 1997, public policy organization Public Agenda found that, of 900 professors of education, 86% believed it was more important for aspiring teachers to “struggle with the process of finding the right answers than knowing the right answer” (“Professors,” 1997). Fifty-seven percent thought that children who used calculators from the beginning would have better problem-solving skills. Just 55% would require high-school graduates to demonstrate proficiency in “spelling, grammar, and punctuation.” Sixty percent wanted “less emphasis on memorization” in the classroom.

Fast-forward 11 years to 2008. A report from the National Council on Teacher Quality said that elementary-school teachers are now ill prepared to teach math to their students, having received insufficient instruction in math while they were in college (Zuckerbrod, 2008).

Folks, teachers have been betrayed too. They’re in the same shoes as their students. They can’t know things they haven’t been taught. If they don’t know it, they’ll struggle to teach it. Some would argue that last point with me, but just look around. The proof is right there in the generally weak math skills, sinking enrollments and high rates of dropouts and remediation.

Dr. Sandra Stotsky is a professor of Education Reform and holds the 21st Century Chair in Teacher Quality at the University of Arkansas. She is also a member of the Massachusetts Board of Education, and was a member of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. She has said schools of education are “a major part of the problem,” not the solution (2005) and that they’re responsible for three critical issues facing public schools:

Many teachers, especially those in K-8, have not gained an adequate academic background in the subject they’re supposed to teach in their professional preparation program.

“As every school district has found, most of their K-8 teachers require continuous professional development in the knowledge base for the subjects they teach. This is remediation, not enrichment or updating ….”

Colleges and universities aren’t providing public schools with sufficient numbers of “academically qualified teachers” for core secondary school subjects.
“Education schools do not train prospective teachers how to teach.”

“Instead, they arm new teachers with a host of pseudo-teaching strategies like small group work and with the philosophy that students should ‘construct their own knowledge’ and are more capable of shaping their own intellectual growth than teachers if they are sufficiently motivated by ‘inquiry.’ Education schools have been especially remiss in preparing new instructors with research-based knowledge for teaching beginning reading and arithmetic … The funds now invested in professional development to train our current teaching force how to teach beginning reading and arithmetic are staggering.”

Many teachers earn extra pay for master’s degrees, but Dr. Stotsky is critical of the typical master’s of education degree, calling it “an academically impoverished set of courses touting a body of ‘professional’ knowledge that has little, if any, support from credible research.” She says schools of education often disparage scientifically based evidence as “positivistic and irrelevant,” while rejecting scientific research that supports systematic and explicit instruction in reading, practicing skills, and providing “highly structured teaching” for at-risk children:

“Many if not most of the faculty in our education schools who prepare new teachers and retrain experienced ones do not accept the results of scientific research on the nature, development, and teaching of reading or writing or arithmetic. … They thus mistrain those who are preparing to teach in costly licensure programs … and continue to mistrain them in even more costly professional development programs.”

Speaking of development programs, it’s strange to me that people go to college, learn how to teach and then come out supposedly needing retraining in order to teach. Why would universities and colleges allow such a situation to continue? If teachers don’t know how to teach when they graduate from education programs, then either they need to stay there longer, or maybe there’s something wrong with the programs.

If I ran a university, and my school of education didn’t turn out teachers who were qualified to teach – without the constant need for coaching and retraining – I’d be embarrassed. If I ran a school district and had to keep retraining the people I hired – I’d be embarrassed. If I were a teacher, I’d be angry that I paid for a college education that didn’t adequately prepare me to go out and work. This is not an argument to fire a bunch of teachers; I’m following this thought through to its logical conclusion. If teachers who graduate from college need retraining, then something is awry.

Besides the fact that professional development is a lucrative business, it’s another sneaky way of blaming the teachers. It’s easier and more comfortable to say: “The math programs will work just fine once the teachers know how to teach it” than it is to acknowledge that the curriculum itself is inadequate and incomprehensible. Illogically, while teachers are away from class getting all of this retraining, their students are taught by substitute teachers who are not getting the retraining.

I’m truly surprised teachers haven’t yet filed a class-action lawsuit.

In March 2008, the National Mathematics Advisory Panel said teacher-education programs must focus more on traditional aspects of math such as whole numbers, fractions, geometry, measurement and algebra (“Foundations,” 2008, p. xviii). The Panel said teachers need to know mathematics in order to teach it better, and so the “mathematics preparation of elementary and middle school teachers must be strengthened as one means for improving teachers’ effectiveness in the classroom” (p. 39).

(It’s hard to believe the NMAP had to say that.)

Can we ever expect professors currently in the colleges of education to step back and say, “Gee, maybe we were wrong”? Most of them taught reform, promoted it, fought for it, received grant money for it and published material on it. It takes a big person to admit an error, especially one this costly in children’s futures. I expect most of them to support reform until they die.

Parents could grow old and gray waiting for teacher education programs to acknowledge the obvious. Find out what your children need to know for post-secondary life and fill in the gaps. Students shouldn’t have to wait until they’re 30 to get the math they need for the life they want.

Please note: The information in this post is copyrighted. The proper citation is:
Rogers, L. (February, 2009). "Teacher education programs big part of the problem." Retrieved (date) from the Betrayed Web site: http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailing.blogspot.com/

This article was posted February 9, 2009 at Educationnews.org, at http://ednews.org/articles/33695/1/Teacher-Education-Programs-Part-of-the-Problem/Page1.html

Parents have the power to change everything

2009-01-28T18:14:00.000-08:00

"We have it in our power to begin the world over again."
-- Thomas Paine

How did public education get to be so complicated, cumbersome, expensive and ineffective? I know that teachers care and try hard. I know staff members capably do their jobs. Yet, ineffective classroom policies persist. Teachers feel they can’t speak freely. Parents are shut out of the decision-making process. Administrators continue to enthusiastically embrace ridiculously ineffective curricula. Money continually gets frittered away on things that won’t have a positive effect on student learning.

Education advocates keep hearing: “You’re the only one who’s ever complained.”
“This is the first time I’ve ever heard of problems like the ones you’ve described.”
“Parents who leave our district don’t leave because of the curriculum or learning environment.”

More than a year ago, I wondered what administrators thought of the reform math curricula that have resulted in such low levels of competency across the entire country. In November 2007, I asked Debbie Oakley, Spokane’s elementary math coordinator, if she thought the district’s K-6 math curricula (all reform) were good. All she would say is that the curricula wouldn’t be here if administrators didn’t think they were good. Logically, then, district administrators must believe the programs are good – since they’re still here. But that’s weird, inundated as the district is with a wealth of evidence that says otherwise.

In the fall of 2008, a survey was done of families who had chosen to leave Spokane Public Schools. Thirty-three percent of the respondents said they left partly or solely because the quality of the curriculum was less than they expected; 21% said the desired coursework wasn’t available. (This survey did not include families who chose to go to private schools. I suspect that many of them also left over the curriculum.)

On Jan. 14, 2008, I emailed Spokane Superintendent Nancy Stowell to ask the following questions about this survey:

“What did you learn from this report that you didn't know before?
Did this report say what you thought it would say? If not, what were the surprises?
What does this report indicate to you about why these parents have left Spokane Public Schools?
What do you think Spokane Public Schools should do as a consequence of this survey?
Will Spokane Public Schools try to get these parents back?
How will Spokane Public Schools encourage other parents to stay with the district?
Will there be more exit surveys like this one? Will surveys become a regular process? If so, when will that start?”

Ten days later, Dr. Stowell emailed me back. This was her entire response:

“Dear Laurie,
One of the important things we learned in this survey is that we probably need to dig a little deeper with the questions if the information is to be valuable and actually inform our decision making. In many cases it is hard to draw any solid conclusions from the information. We are still very interested in providing options for parents so that they choose Spokane Public Schools; we will continue to work on that. Right now our focus is on providing information regarding the bond and levy renewals on the March 10 election ballot. That is really consuming our time right now. We're out making several presentations a day.
Nancy”

Either there are other things Dr. Stowell learned that she’s declining to mention, or administrators spent $8,000 on a survey and learned only that they need to do a better survey. Faced with concrete proof that parents are dissatisfied with the curriculum, Dr. Stowell implied that the information isn’t valuable, that it won’t inform her decision-making, and that the district’s main focus is on asking parents for money.

When someone says the grass is green, and all of the evidence indicates that it’s brown, there are several possible reasons for the inconsistency:

a) the person doesn’t understand what’s being asked
b) the person doesn’t want to know what color the grass is
c) the person has a different definition of "green," "grass," "color" or "is"
d) the person is lying
e) the person is foolish

When a survey clearly says parents are frustrated with the district curricula, what are we to think when administrators refuse to acknowledge that?

Different definitions: Perhaps the definition of “good” is the issue. I think “good” mathematics curricula are structured to lead 85-100% of students to competence in pre-college mathematics. Perhaps administrators think “good” curricula are structured to lead 60% of the students to pass simplistic standardized tests (or some loopy alternative) in one of five possible attempts. It’s distressing to see the yawning maw between where I stand and where administrators appear to stand. It’s as though I’m looking at a chair, and they’re looking at a table, and we could sit and argue all day about what we see, but at the end of the day, they’ll see a table and I’ll see a chair. Can a gap like that ever be bridged?

Foolishness: Many administrators are accomplished at “edu-speak” (an annoying blend of words, pretend-words and almost-words commonly used in education circles). Administrators are also good at diverting conversations to more comfortable areas. It can be instructive to try to pin down the half-statements and leaps in logic; when one does that, people who are unknowledgeable or hiding something tend to quickly become defensive, accusatory or dismissive.

Don’t want to know: Early in 2008, Dr. Stowell mused: “Sometimes I think people don’t want to know (why families are leaving) because … when you know, … you have to do something about it.”
I’m sure she’s right about that.

Meanwhile, if the public believes that math and education advocates are stupid, foolish, selfish, extremist, unreasonable, unknowledgeable, rude or impatient; if we can’t be pleased; if we’re alone in our complaints; if we’re expecting too much … then administrators don’t need to take us seriously. They don’t need to make hard decisions or speak honestly of their errors – especially the big ones. Instead, they can look like they’re listening, they can write nice little notes or letters, and they can even meet us for coffee. Then they can go right back to their original plan, having already forgotten what we said.

It’s darn frustrating. Some frustrated parents will quietly resort to other options. They might be too frustrated to tell administrators what they’re thinking, but it will be some variation of this:

“Administrators don’t care what I think. I can talk about my child’s classroom until I’m blue in the face; it won’t matter. I can bring them information, surveys, reports and empirical evidence. I can pack district and school-board meetings with parents, math professors, business leaders and students. I can show them how the district’s money is wasted on training and tutoring in the same failed approaches. They’ll refuse to hear me. They’ll say anything, and blame anyone, rather than acknowledge the truth. “But I can vote. Until there’s a better test, I can say no to their testing. Until the curriculum is structured to guide students to college, I can say no to the math classes or to the entire public-school system. Until they start taking me seriously, I can vote no when they come up for re-election. Until I’m certain my tax dollars will go where they should, I can vote no to any new requests. I can tell my friends. I can speak up at PTA meetings. I can encourage others to vote with their feet."Parents do have a voice. Some day, administrators will have to listen.

Please note: The information in this post is copyrighted. The proper citation is:
Rogers, L. (January, 2009). "Parents have the power to change everything." Retrieved (date) from the Betrayed Web site: http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailing.blogspot.com/

I say it's the curriculum

2009-01-17T20:07:00.000-08:00

(Updated February 5, 2009):

The mathematics curricula in American public schools represent perhaps the biggest problem with American mathematics achievement, yet many administrative, legislative and media conversations about mathematics don’t mention them.

On Jan. 15, 2009, for example, four “big education thinkers” offered “a few words” to President Barack Obama on how to improve education (Toppo, 2009a). In their original response to the question, these thinkers might have waxed poetic about the curriculum, but in the published article, curriculum isn’t mentioned.

On Jan. 20, 2009, an article discussed the $142 billion dollars that will be lopped off the $825 billion economic stimulus plan and delivered to public schools over two years (Toppo, 2009b). The $142 billion for education is huge – reportedly more than “health care, energy or infrastructure projects.” The money apparently comes with “strings” attached, but if one of the strings is to improve the curriculum, the article doesn’t mention it.

Education administrators keep talking about how they need billions more dollars to improve public education. They talk about money for technology, teacher pay and incentives, special education, smaller classes, all-day kindergarten, programs for “struggling” students and more teachers and staff. I rarely hear them mention any plans to fund improvements in the curriculum. It’s difficult to even get them to criticize the curriculum. At times, it’s almost as if they’ve been in a cult.

“It’s about the curriculum,” I say.
“We really need education to be fully funded,” they say.
“It’s the curriculum,” I say.
“Most of our district families are lower income.”
“It’s the curriculum,” I say.
“We just need better coaching support for the teachers.”
“It’s the curriculum, curriculum, curriculum, curriculum!”
“If our teachers could just get more professional training… If the state would just stop messing with the standards… If our kids just didn’t have so many challenges … If we just had more alternatives that would interest the students…”

Arggh! It’s like trying to force together the north poles of two magnets.

In October 2007, Spokane Public Schools officials said the drops in student enrollment were bewildering (Leaming, 2007e). The district had lost more than 2,000 students since 2001 (“School,” n.d.), and officials speculated about possible factors such as jobs, demographics, new construction north of the city and lower-cost housing. They did not publicly speculate about parent dissatisfaction. (The question is important, considering that the 2006 enrollment drop of 350 students reportedly cost the district $1.6 million in revenue) (“Funding,” n.d.).

In a belated effort to find out why enrollment was dropping like a rock in a bathtub, district officials decided to hire a demographer to conduct a study. In a May 2008 online “chat,” Spokane Superintendent Nancy Stowell said the demographer projected another drop of 375 students, “mostly at the secondary level,” for the 2008-09 school year. Enrollment was projected to turn around in 2013, “depending on economic and housing trends” (“Chat,” 2008b). She didn’t mention the demographer’s recommendation that the district do a survey of families and brokerage firms to determine “perceptions of local schools” (“Regular,” 2008b, p. 9).

I think Spokane administrators already had some indication of parent dissatisfaction. When I met with the district director of communications and community relations more than a year ago, she showed me partial copies of small exit surveys that had been done. Some of the questions were vague and the data pools were small, but the results were intriguing. On one survey, the reason parents gave most often for leaving was “Choice,” the second was “Home school,” the fourth was “Better for student,” the sixth was “Continue at another school” and the ninth was “No reason given.” (“Dissatisfaction with the curriculum” was not an option.)

On another survey, the top reasons given for leaving were “Other reason” (by more than a 3:1 ratio) and the top clarifying explanation was “better academic program.”

On the third survey, the top reason given for sending a child to a Spokane Public School was “live close to the school.” The top reason given for sending a child to a school that is not in the district was “quality of schools.”

These surveys should have piqued someone’s interest.

Following the demographer’s recommendation, a telephone survey of parents was done between Aug. 26, 2008 and Sept. 5, 2008. Drawing from a list of 1,368 student transfers between Feb. 21, 2006, and Aug. 15, 2008, interviewers completed 294 interviews, asking about 24 questions in each. The report was completed in September 2008; its margin of error is +/- 4.5% (“Spokane,” 2008). The results were telling.

Five of the top six schools having out-of-district transfers were high schools. Five of the district’s 7 middle schools also were listed in the top 14. A whopping 79% of students who left went to: the Mead School District (located north of the city); online for virtual options; or to the West Valley School District. (Private schools as a destination were not included in the survey.) Parents were allowed to cite more than one reason for leaving the school district. The top 5 reasons that were cited:

33%: Quality of curriculum does not match your expectations
26%: District class sizes too large
22%: A transfer will make student more accessible to parent’s work
21%: Desired coursework is not offered in the district
21%: Student doesn’t feel connected to his/her current school

Additionally:

87% of the respondents said no one from the district had contacted them to offer alternative options for schooling;
59% said there was nothing the district could do to interest them in returning.

(On a positive note, in 104 cases, respondents made suggestions for improvements – including improving the curriculum – and 68% of those making suggestions said they might return if the improvements were made.)

I’m not surprised. Early in 2008 when I met with Dr. Stowell, I told her it seems to me there is no connection between parents’ frustration and the district’s perception of the situation. Dr. Stowell replied that when administrators receive complaints, they’re “always trying to figure out, ‘So, is this, like, a couple (of) people? Is this bigger than a couple (of) people? Is it issue-centered?’”

She said she knew families would appreciate more opportunities to be heard. “We’re never going to be for every person exactly what they want, I don’t think, but certainly there are lots of things I think we could do differently based on what we hear from our community.” She also mused that, “Sometimes I think people don’t want to know (why families are leaving) because … when you know, … you have to do something about it.”

On Jan. 14, 2009, I emailed Dr. Stowell to ask her what the 2008 telephone survey indicated to her and where she thought the district should go from here. I believe she should have a clear sense now that the district curriculum is a serious problem for a large number of families.

What she and fellow administrators choose to do about that remains to be seen.

Please note: The information in this post is copyrighted. The proper citation is:
Rogers, L. (January, 2009). "I say it's the curriculum." Retrieved (date) from the Betrayed Web site: http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailing.blogspot.com/

This article was also published January 22, 2009, on EducationNews.org at

http://ednews.org/articles/33074/1/I-Say-It039s-About-the-Curriculum/Page1.html

What about the 40% who didn't pass?

2009-01-09T09:30:00.000-08:00

In a January 2007 interview, I offered a statistic to (then) Spokane Superintendent Dr. Brian Benzel:

“Forty percent of the students didn’t pass the math requirement,” I noted.
“But sixty percent did,” he said encouragingly.
“I know,” I persisted, “but if you’re a parent of one of the 60%, then woo-hoo for you, but if you’re a parent of the one of the 40%…”

Dr. Benzel assured me that overall, grades are up. “As recently as 5 years ago, 60% didn’t (pass), and 40% did,” he said. “We’re being very clear in what these learning targets are, and it’s contrary to the way most of us adults went to school. We were all compared to our peers. We weren’t compared to standards. We were scored on norm-referenced tests, where we were measured against a mythical group of students from 20 years ago or 10 years ago.”

And then … he proceeded to blame it on the students: “If there’s a problem after 4th grade, this thing called free will comes into play. The choices that students make take on grave power in a person’s willingness to learn. Up through 4th grade and 10 years old, kids tend to do pretty much what we tell them to do.”

It sounded as though Dr. Benzel was explaining the 40% failure rate in part by saying students were deciding to not learn. Are you shocked? Dr. Benzel isn’t alone. A high-school teacher in Spokane echoed this theory in a May 2008 Letter to the Editor, writing: “The real breakdown in our current model of education is, in part, the growing number of students who simply don’t want to learn… These are likeable, worthwhile kids, but they have been influenced by our culture, their sense of entitlement or a teenage lack of foresight, and concluded that the classroom isn’t worth their time.”

In the fall of 2007, I asked a district administrator about the scores on the 2007 Washington Assessment of Student Learning (WASL). I showed her the district Report Card, pointing out how the math scores dropped grade after grade until Grade 10, when just 48.1% of students passed the math WASL. “What about 6th grade,” I asked her, “where just 57.9% of the students passed the math portion of the WASL?” Her response: “How do we know that 60% isn’t good?” She said it might be good, depending on where that group began.

These exchanges show you the vast difference in thinking. I don’t look to the students to find out why 40 to 60% of them don’t pass the WASL. I don’t believe that 40 to 60% of them don’t want to learn or come to school not ready to learn. If the situation weren’t affecting children, these statements from educators might even be funny.

Try this statement on for size: “The real breakdown in our current model of health care is, in part, the growing number of patients who simply don’t want to get well.”

Or how about this: “The real breakdown in our current model of national defense is, in part, the growing number of citizens who simply don’t want to be protected.”

It isn’t all that often that 60% is “good.” If you expect a score to be zero, and instead it’s 60%, perhaps 60% is a huge relief. But it isn’t good.

It isn’t good on a battlefield. (“Sir, 60% of the men have guns and ammunition.”)
It isn’t good in a hospital. (“Ma’am, 60% of our patients lived through the night.”)
It isn’t good at the dinner table. (“You get to eat 60% of your meals.”)
It isn’t good in college. (“Sixty percent of you will get textbooks this year.”)
It isn’t good as a score in the classroom, and it isn’t good as a pass rate on the WASL.

I don’t see a 60% pass rate as “great gains.” I understand that the figures matter with respect to NCLB requirements, but what about the 4 out of 10 children who didn’t pass? I don’t celebrate because this year (for example), 61.8 percent of students made it as opposed to only 59.3 percent last year. To me, both figures are pitiful. I’m not looking to slowly eke our way up over three decades of struggle. There’s no good reason why it shouldn’t happen right now, this year, on their watch. We’ve been teaching math and science in this country for hundreds of years. How did it suddenly get to be so hard?

It’s a travesty that only 60% pass the math portion and even fewer pass the science portion. It’s a complete district failure. Imagine how the students see themselves. It’s shameful, when, with a more effective learning environment, most could have learned what they needed to know. How can we even communicate when I see 60% as a failure, and they see it as potentially good? I was shocked that district administrators would go on the record saying 60% might be good – and then defend that statement against my shock. They can continue to write their own reality, but you and I know the truth. A 60% pass rate isn’t good. It might be an improvement. It might be the best you can do. It’s certainly better than zero. But it isn’t good.

Queried about the 40% of students who didn’t pass, Dr. Benzel wanted to focus on the 60% who did. You’ve sure got to hope your child’s one of the 60%.

Please note: The information in this post is copyrighted. The proper citation is:
Rogers, L. (January, 2009). "What about the 40% who didn't pass?" Retrieved (date) from the Betrayed Web site: http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailing.blogspot.com/

The aritlce was posted January 12, 2009 at EducationNews.org at http://ednews.org/articles/32745/1/What-about-the-40-who-didn039t-pass/Page1.html

District view of AP at odds with universities

2008-12-17T13:43:00.000-08:00

Updated February 5, 2009:

In October, a parent of a student in Spokane Public Schools sent me copies of his email to the district and the district’s response. The parent was concerned that “the math District 81 is teaching will not prepare our students for entry into colleges both in WA and around our nation… Students are graduating from local high schools with A's in honors math and are having to take remedial math to get into college.”

The district response to this parent came from Rick Biggerstaff, secondary mathematics coordinator and AP calculus teacher at Lewis & Clark High School. Biggerstaff reassured the worried parent, noting (in part) that Advanced Placement enrollments and “passing scores” are increasing. (Advanced Placement classes are college-level classes that are taken in high school. School districts often point to increasing AP enrollments and pass rates as indicators that mathematics achievement is improving.) Biggerstaff wrote:

“… I can say that our district continues to increase enrollment in AP classes and statistically performs very well on the AP exam. In the 12 years that I have personally been involved with the AP calculus program I have watched the number of students in AP mathematics throughout our district double in volume, seen the program go from no high school statistics programs, to each high school having at least one AP statistics class, and watched the number of passing scores on these tests grow significantly. … What matters is the level of cognitive engagement in our classrooms. Whether you arrive at that through a traditional approach or non-traditional approach is not nearly as significant as focusing on student engagement. We believe our increased numbers in ‘honors’ level math along with a growth in passing AP scores reflects our work in this area.”Naturally, this response piqued my interest. The entire point of school is to gain useful information and skills for the next grades and for postsecondary life. If AP enrollment and pass rates are increasing, these could be indicators that student knowledge is increasing. Recognizing, however, that there has been much speculation in the nation about what education statistics actually represent, I called the district to determine Spokane’s AP enrollments and pass rates. Staff members were unable to give me AP enrollments specifically (that data is lumped in with honors enrollment), but they sent me a table of AP exam results from 1992 to 2008. Here is part of that table:

Summary of AP Exam Results
	1992	2000	2008
Number of students	193	368	1093
Number of exams	271	636	2028
Number of course areas	13	15	27
Number of exams passed	198	515	1099
Percent passing	73%	81%	54%
Average grade	3.18	3.45	2.72

Average Passing Grade
	1992	2000	2008
Spokane	3.18	3.45	2.72
Washington	3.02	3.10	2.87
Western Region	3.08	3.03	2.86
Global	3.05	3.02	2.85

According to the full table, numbers of exam-takers steadily increased from 2000 to 2008, while the percent passing and the average grades steadily decreased. In 2000, 368 students took AP exams; 81% achieved a score of 3 or greater ("3" has traditionally been considered a passing grade.) Their average grade was 3.45. In 2008, however, 1,093 students took exams; 54.2% achieved a 3 or greater. Their average grade was 2.72. This decline occurred despite the near doubling of course areas in which students took their exams – from 15 course areas in 2000 to 27 course areas in 2008. Meanwhile, since 2001, the full-time enrollment in District 81 dropped by about 2,000 students. Therefore, AP enrollment and AP exam-taking increased despite a decrease in overall student population.

In 2000, Spokane students scored better on their AP exams than students in certain other areas. In 2008, however, Spokane students did less well than students in those other areas.

Technically, Spokane administrators can say that the number of students passing AP exams has increased. In 2000, 81% of 636 student exams were passed, for a total of 515 exams passed. In 2008, 54.2% of 2,028 student exams were passed, for a total of 1,099 exams passed. In effect, 584 more exams were passed in 2008 than in 2000.

Technically, however, it can also be said that the number of students failing AP exams has increased. In 2000, 19% of student exams (121 total) were not passed, while in 2008, 45.8% of student exams (929 total) were not passed. In effect, 808 more exams were failed in 2008 than in 2000.

In 2008 in AP mathematics, 66% of the students achieved a 3 or better on their exams. At Lewis & Clark High School, just 24% achieved a 3 or better on the Calculus AB exam; in Calculus BC, 59% did. In 2007, just 36% of the Lewis & Clark students achieved a 3 or better on the Calculus AB exam; in Calculus BC, 53% did.

Do these numbers indicate district improvement in mathematics? Much depends on how important you think it is to achieve a score of at least 3. Last year, a school board member commented that students who failed to achieve a 3 or better on their AP exams "must have learned something while they were there.” A district administrator told me today the College Board (which runs the AP program) says schools shouldn’t “talk about pass rates” because colleges vary in what they’ll accept. I asked her if schools should at least have a target in mind, and she said, “Not necessarily.” AP courses are rigorous and accredited, she said, so “it’s hard” to make pass rates “a concern.”

Folks, if we aren’t concerned with pass rates, if we don’t even have a target, how do parents and students know when they’ve achieved what they want to achieve? How do the universities know? How do employers know? How does the district know when it’s failed to do its job?

It turns out the universities do know. Whitworth University, Gonzaga University, Eastern Washington University, Washington State University and the University of Washington (Seattle) all indicate that - depending on the subject - they give credit for passing scores of 3, 4 or 5. For example, Gonzaga gives credit for AP calculus scores of 4 or 5. Spokane's community colleges also give credit for scores of 3, 4 or 5. The College Board probably knows, too. It says the 5-point scale represents the following:

5 – extremely well qualified
4 – well qualified
3 – qualified
2 – possibly qualified
1 – no recommendation

School administrators know, too. Students in Washington must obtain at least a "3" on AP math exams in order to use the classes as alternatives to the 10th-grade math WASL.

So I worry about those 929 failed AP exams in 2008 and the drop in the average grade. I worry about students who are ushered into AP classes, who fail to achieve at least a 3 on the exams, and about whom we’re supposed to say, “Well, they must have learned something while they were there.” Sadly for them, some will have learned that achievement doesn’t matter. It does, though. It always will. They’ll find that out on their own – the hard way.

Please note: The information in this post is copyrighted. The proper citation is:
Rogers, L. (December, 2008). "District view of AP at odds with universities." Retrieved (date) from the Betrayed Web site: http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailing.blogspot.com/

This article was also published December 18, 2008, in EducationNews.org at http://ednews.org/articles/32030/1/School-district039s-view-of-AP-at-odds-with-universities/Page1.html