Why administrators don't listen

“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 for 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/

Students learn by being taught

“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

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

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

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?

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

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/