In long-expected move - legislators, school districts outlaw the children

By Laurie H. Rogers

(Note: This article is a satire that contains much truth.)

Perched up there the tears of others are never upon our own cheek.”

― Elizabeth Goudge, The White Witch

“I say let the world go to hell, but I should always have my tea.”

― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Notes from Underground

Republicans, Democrats, progressives, communists, anarchists, elitists, corporatists and fascists are finally working together – in a multi-partisan effort to look the same. Having outlawed logic several sessions ago, Washington legislators are fixing education by breaking it some more.

• HB 2799 would pay the deep thinkers in the colleges of education to “partner” with K-12 on “innovation,” thus sending all of us farther into financial, academic and social ruin.
• HB 2337 would pay the geniuses at the state education agency to write online curricula in alignment with the unfunded, unproved, arguably illegal, obscenely expensive de facto federal mandate called the Common Core. Legislators who had promised to help fight off the Common Core defended their support of HB 2337 by saying, “Shut up. Don’t be so negative.”
• HB 2586 would pay for mandated standardized testing of kindergartners, getting them started early with government brow-beating and low self-esteem. Legislators explained the idea: “Why should kindergartners feel good about themselves? Nobody else gets to do it.”
• HB 2533 was affectionately dubbed “Fund the Education Mob First.” Legislators defended their support of this bill by refusing to discuss it.

School districts already suffering from a phenomenal growth in their operating and capital projects budgets over ten years have been forced to consider doing things properly and efficiently. Desperate, they begged for help, and lawmakers came to their aid by voting to eliminate everything from school buildings other than administrative staff. As a matter of efficiency, the measures became law before they were written.

As a result of these measures, school district buildings in Washington State soon will have nothing in them but administrators, support staff and “Vote Yes for Kids!” signs. Forums were held around the state to pretend to gather feedback. In Spokane, administrators shrugged and said, “So what? We’ve already begun to do that. We’ve been trying to get rid of the little buggers for decades.”

At a town hall meeting, a representative seemed puzzled when asked if banning the children would be academically counterproductive. “Academics? In public schools? That’s funny,” he chuckled, sipping a latte. “Oh, you’re serious. Well, we can’t fund everything. Everyone has to sacrifice.”

Union leaders attending the town hall meeting defended the decision, in a show of strength and supreme self-interest. “Why should we fight for children?” a union president sniffed. “Do children ever fight for us? No, they do not. Go ask them why they’re so focused on themselves. Irritating little snots.” Asked about academics, she looked blanker than normal. “Academics?” she asked. “What? Where?”

A few reporters at the meeting roused themselves from a decade-long stupor to ask a board director about the decision. The board director looked in vain for his District Talking Points. “Well, yes, it’s unusual, to be sure,” he said, carefully, unused to thinking for himself. He looked around for help, but administrators were off collecting favors. He began to sweat. “It’s precedent-setting. Unprecedented. Innovative, you know. Transformative. Part of the reform.” His voice trailed off.

“We had to do it,” he said suddenly. “We gave the keys to the U.S. Department of Education, and the secretary said he’d get us a spare set. We haven’t gotten them back yet. Maybe the mail is late… I don’t know.” He stopped, horrified. “This is not good for me,” he said, rushing off.

“Sanity has become vanity,” chuckled a math teacher, watching the board director escape. The teacher thought fondly of his third margarita of the day, now two margaritas ago. “I lost my man-ity when we lost our sanity,” he sang softly. He glared at the room, then hiccupped. “No one will let me save the children, you know,” he confided, his breath an alcoholic mist. “But I am allowed to save the manatees.”

Asked about the children, another board director snapped, “Who cares?” Then he remembered his Talking Points. “No, wait,” he said sincerely. “That’s not right. It’s all about the kids.”

“Hey, look, you, you’re missing the point,” a tech vendor fretted, looking over a parent’s shoulder. “What are you writing? Stop that. It isn’t about us. You seem obsessed, and you’re very negative. You aren’t all that likable, either, I don’t know if anyone has said that to you. No offense. But you don’t understand what we’re going through. We aren’t bad people. We just want to do what’s best for us. For the kids, I mean. Damn it, I keep mixing that up. It’s really all about the kids.”

The vendor was tapped on the shoulder, and he turned around. “Oh, thank you,” he said politely, stuffing a hundred-dollar bill down his pants. “I got my kids through private school this way,” he confided.

Meanwhile, local citizens were startled to find out that their children had been outlawed. “What the heck?” asked a perplexed parent. “Aren’t schools supposed to have children in them?”

“Not necessarily,” replied a superintendent. “We wish we could accommodate that. We know that’s what parents expect, and we suppose most of the teachers care about the kids. We’ve done our best, but with the economy so weak, with parents and teachers being incompetent, and with nobody but a few malcontents insisting that we actually teach the children, well, we’ve run out of options. This was a last resort. It isn’t something any of us want.”

The superintendent said if people want their children back in schools, they could always come up with more money. “Another billion might do it,” she mused, staring out the window at her new Mercedes, parked outside the door in two spaces so no one could dent a door. “It depends on many things.”

Meanwhile, an associate superintendent told the parent that perhaps some of the children could be allowed back in, on an interim basis, to carry the district’s “Vote For Our Levy, Damn You” signs, or to spray-paint “If You Aren’t a Kid-Hater, Vote for the Levy” on the side of houses. “The children also could open doors for us,” he offered helpfully, “wash the Mercedes, and serve tea.”

“I guess it was to be expected,” the parent said sheepishly as she left to buy paint and tea. “Phonics went away, then arithmetic. Then grammar. Then cursive writing. The kids were bound to be next.”

Amid speculation as to how these bills and decisions would affect children academically, one local know-it-all said it might actually be better for them to be taught at home. “They aren’t being properly taught in the schools, and the district’s failed approach seems abusive. Maybe parents and grandparents will teach them,” she said hopefully, to loud guffaws from the Education Mob.

“Don’t listen to her,” a legislator told the Mob. “She’s an idiot, and she didn’t donate to my campaign. The kids are fine. Well, ours are fine. OK, well, mine are fine. And that’s what matters.” The Mob and media nodded as one, knowing he wouldn’t say it if it weren’t true.

The math teacher, now fondly recalling his 6th margarita, was accidentally asked where education money goes. He said blearily, “We have no freaking idea. Everyone in the city is out for themselves. Nobody cares about the kids or the parents. Teachers are subbed out constantly to learn stupid things and to manage fund-raisers. The paper complains about excessive power, full disclosure and budget cuts, but they have the power, there are no budget cuts, and nobody but parents wants full disclosure."

The room quieted. The Mob/media blinked, wondering what to do. Someone began preparing a rope. An instructional coach jumped up, smiling thinly. “You’re drunk. Be quiet. You’re fired,” he said to the teacher. He turned back to the room and assumed a caring expression. “Budgets have been devastated,” he said. The Mob/media nodded. “Superintendents are crying, in their offices,” he said. The Mob/media tsk-tsked. “Poor things,” they murmured.

“It’s a budget tsunami out there,” the coach added, shedding a tear. “A budget lynching. It’s a civil rights issue.” The media listened investigatively. “I don’t have exact numbers with me, but listen. How will districts buy pencils, now, for the children? We do not want the children to not have pencils. And they’ll starve. Do we want the children to starve? No, we do not!” The Mob/media nodded obediently.

“Wrong!” the math teacher shouted, from his drunken purgatory. “Parents send in pencils, every September. They have to. They get a list. They also have to buy paper. And glue. And pens. And tissues. They bring in big bags of stuff. Nobody adds that to the costs of public schools, but it must be …”

“Damn it,” the coach snapped at the teacher. “You were fired. Why are you still here?” Turning to the room, the coach smiled earnestly. “It’s very simple. If we have the children, we can’t afford more coaches and principals, and we need the coaches and principals because parents and teachers are crappy. Everybody knows that. It’s a tough economy, and tough decisions have to be made.”

Behind him, the representative nodded sensitively. “I’m a businessman, and I know all about it. He’s right. They’re doing their best. It’s no one’s fault, although I do think it’s the kids’ fault.”

The Mob/media nodded, relieved to be hearing from a businessman.

“I get it,” a reporter said collaboratively. “Adults need other adults, and they all need car allowances, and the cars need gas, and gas is more expensive. No money left for pencils. Wow. Poor kids.”

“Poor kids,” the other media echoed, taking careful notes regarding each other.

“Are you all idiots?” the drunken voice asked, from his purgatory. “Parents have to do most of the academics. Long division, grammar, handwriting, phonics … They can’t get any of that in public schools. The problem is not money – it’s them,” he said, waving a middle finger at the bureaucracy. “What’s the country coming to when schools don’t have children?”

The drunken math teacher was led away and shot. Hearing the sound, the reporters moved uneasily in their seat, wondering how to respond. Taxpayer-funded doughnuts were quickly furnished for them –sugar-coated cakes with sprinkles. Everyone took two, daintily brushing sugar and sprinkles onto the taxpayer-funded carpet. Someone sighed happily; the rest hastened to follow suit.

A superintendent grinned, showing canines. “It’s such hard work to keep everyone happy,” she said. “Hard, hard work. It’s another challenge we face, on top of so many. But we care about you, and we’ll help you … in whichever way you want.” The reporters nodded, mouths full and faces sticky.

A school director stood up. He was smiling. Sober. Happy to be there. Not intending to be shot. “We can’t depend on the whims of voters,” he said confidently to the media, who so appreciate confidence. “Nothing is more important than the kiddoes. We care about them just that much.” He smiled at the reporters, and they smiled back. All were in alignment with themselves.

In an inspired use of his brand new Ed.D, the school director suggested taxing the second-to-top 1% of the population, the bottom 17%, the near-bottom 43%, and the upper middle 38% to pay for basic education, work for social justice, fight for revolution and take care of inequities. A parent raised a hand to ask about that last 1%, at the very top.

“What?” the Ed.D turned on him, eyes narrowed. “You want to ask a question? You aren’t anti-school or something, are you? Anti-kid? Anti-teacher? You aren’t a hater, I hope.”

The parent whimpered and lowered his hand.

“It’s about the kiddoes,” a superintendent cooed administratively. “Those little kids. Little tykes. So cute. They need us. They have so many challenges. We must all take responsibility. It isn’t like we enjoy making these tough decisions. It keeps us up at night. We suffer and sacrifice and feel awful about it. But we have no choice. We’ve cut to the bone. Go out now and tell the people. Then come back and we’ll give you a pat and a doughnut. Just remember. It’s all for the kids.”

The media nodded, wanting to be forceful but fed. “All for the kids,” they repeated.

Epilogue:

In 2014, children were allowed back into the schools. Parents who refused to put their kids in public schools faced a firing squad. (Most chose the public schools.) Grade 12 students were faced with daunting choices: Paint graffiti and serve tea; emigrate and start all over again; or apply to a college of education. (In a happy coincidence, legislators innovatively passed a Bill that tasked Colleges of Education with creating new Schools of Graffiti and Tea.)

During the first 2014 session, the legislature made truth illegal. The measure passed, nearly unanimously, or so they said. One lone representative dissented, scaring everyone. He was shot. The governor climbed over his body to sign the bill, her heels leaving small, dark holes in his forehead.

Hearing that the Truth Bill had passed, a superintendent said, “We aren’t changing anything. We’re just formalizing what we’re already doing. You won’t see any difference at all. It won’t cost you anything, and you won’t even know.”

The media nodded. “No difference,” they murmured. “No one will know.”


Please note: The information in this post is copyrighted. The proper citation is:
Rogers, L. (March 2012). “In long-expected move - legislators, school districts outlaw the children." Retrieved (date) from the Betrayed Web site: http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailing.blogspot.com/.

This article was reposted March 8, 2012, on Education News at: http://www.educationnews.org/k-12-schools/laurie-rogers-in-long-expected-move-wa-schools-outlaw-kids/

This article was reposted March 8, 2012, on Education Views at: http://educationviews.org/2012/03/08/in-long-expected-move-legislators-school-districts-outlaw-the-children/

A link for this article was posted March 9, 2012, on School Information System at: http://www.schoolinfosystem.org/archives/2012/03/in_long-expecte.php

Afraid of your child's math textbook? You should be

By Annie Keeghan


There may be a reason you can’t figure out some of those math problems in your son or daughter’s math text and it might have nothing at all to do with you. That math homework you're trying to help your child muddle through might include problems with no possible solution. It could be that key information or steps are missing, that the problem involves a concept your child hasn’t yet been introduced to, or that the math problem is structurally unsound for a host of other reasons.

I have worked for over 20 years in educational publishing as a product developer, writer, and editor of curriculum materials for grades K-8. I’ve worked directly for textbook publishers and supplemental publishers (supplemental being those books that are adjuncts to the text), start-ups and large publishing houses. I’ve attended countless sales meetings, product meetings, and planning sessions, seen and taken part in the inner workings of a successful textbook from inception to completion. Over the course of my career, I’ve had the privilege of working with publishers dedicated to producing the best materials possible. Because of them, I was able to produce several successful reading, math, and assessment programs and make a darn good living doing it.

Best of all, I was able to feel proud of those books to which my name was attached. But there are no longer many projects that allow such a feeling to take hold. Why? Because the “new normal” among too many publishers is a severe lack of oversight in the quality of curriculum being produced, and a frightening prevalence of apathy to do anything about it.

The root of problem begins with this key fact: There are only a small number of educational publishers left after rabid buyouts and mergers in the 90s, publishers that all vie for a piece of a four-billion dollar (forbes.com) pie. In recent years, math has become the subject du jour due to government initiatives and efforts to raise the rankings of U.S. students who lag behind in math compared to 30 other industrialized nations. With state and local budgets constrained to unprecedented levels, publishers must compete for fewer available dollars. As a result, many are rushing their products (especially in math) to market to before their competitors, product that in many instances is inherently, tragically flawed.

At one time, a writer in this industry could write a book and receive roughly 6% royalties on sales. The salesperson who sold the product, however, earned (and still does) a commission upwards of 17% on the same product. This sort of pay structure never made sense to me; without the product, there’d be nothing to sell, after all. But this disparity serves to illustrate the thinking that has been entrenched industry-wide for decades—that sales and marketing is more valuable than product.

Now, the balance between the budgets for marketing and product development is growing farther and farther apart, and exponentially so. Today, royalties are a thing of the past for most writers and work-for-hire is the norm. Sales staffs still receive their high commissions, but with today’s outsourcing, writers and editors are consistently offered less than 20% of what they used to make. As a result, the number of qualified writers and editors is diminishing, and those being contracted by developers and publishers often don’t have the necessary skills or experience to produce a text worthy of the publisher’s marketing claims.

Here’s how it works: Many publishers solicit developers, often on the Internet and from all over the world, looking for the best bid on a project. With competition this fierce, developers are forced to drastically lower their rates just to stay in business (and publishers exploit this fact). Let’s say a publisher hires a developer for a certain low-bid fee to produce seven supplemental math books for grades 3-8. The product specs call for each student book and teacher guide to have page counts of roughly 100 pages and 80 pages, respectively. The publisher wants these seven books ready for press in five weeks—over 1,400 pages. To put this in perspective, in the not too recent past at least six months would be allotted for a project of this size. But publishers customarily shrink their deadlines to get a jump on the competition, especially in today’s math market. Unreasonable turnaround times are part of the new normal, something that almost guarantees a lack of quality right out of the gate.

Of course, the developer could say no to this ridiculous timeline, but there are plenty of others who will say yes. So, the developer accepts the work and scrambles to put together a team of writers and editors who must have immediate availability, sheepishly offering them a take-it-or-leave-it rate, a mere pittance of what they could once demand. As is the case for the developer, for each writer or editor who declines, there are scores in the wings who will say yes just to survive. Those who do accept the inferior pay and grueling schedule often do so without the ability to review the product specs to know what they’re getting into. That’s because the specs are still being hashed out by the publisher and developer even as the project begins. And when product specs are “complete”, they are often vague, contradictory, and in need of extensive reworking since they were hastily put together by people juggling far too many projects already.

Given the five-week turnaround time, one book is often broken up among several different writers, a practice which assures a lack of consistency and structure throughout a single book. But I’m being picky. Midway through the writing, the developer realizes that even more writers are needed in order to meet the deadline. Sometimes, in the rush to complete the project, there is no time to discuss resumes and qualifications; there’s a schedule to keep and the developer’s bottom line is starting to dwindle. What often happens is that writers overstate their abilities and haven’t the first clue about state educational standards, Common Core State Standards, or those put out by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, a knowledge of which is essential to produce a worthy math book or text, a knowledge of which should be demanded by developers and publishers alike.

Educational publishing is a small world, and the pool of qualified writers and editors has always been comparatively small to that of mass market or trade publishing. Now with fewer of us willing to accept these conditions, that pool is drying up. Over the last few years I’ve stopped developing and writing educational books; there’s no longer any satisfaction in the work, no demand or appreciation for a product well crafted, no way to make a decent living or produce something that I feel proud to have my name attached to. The day I heard myself ask a publisher not to include my name or that of my company's in the credits of the book I’d consulted on (the final product was nothing like what was originally conceived), came the sad realization that my career as I'd known it was dying. I'd heard whisperings for years from other writers and editors working for other publishers about this “new normal,” but I didn’t understand until I saw with my own eyes what they’d been telling me. I finally understood all their frustration and angst, the conflicted feelings of weighing the need of a paycheck against principle, the feeling of trying to improve a product even if it meant bucking heads with those in charge, people who weren't going to appreciate the effort or compensate appropriately anyway.

So, like many of my fellow colleagues, I’ve taken a step back, chosen not to be a party to something so fundamentally backward. The only work I accept is copyediting, and only when the money is decent (which isn’t often) and when the developer is at least committed to producing curriculum of quality (which also isn’t often). Most of the work I’ve been offered in the past few years is in math, the subject du jour I spoke of. Copyediting, the work I generally do now, is the final stage of editing before the product goes to press, where only a check for grammar, punctuation and things of this nature should be required. Content editing is a whole other expertise, one that is done after the writing where the content editor reviews the writer’s work for accuracy, sense, and structure, and makes sure the material adheres to the product specs. When I’m hired to copyedit, the profound errors I see in content are often staggering enough that grammar and punctuation seem immaterial. Sometimes the content in the student materials is so poor—steps omitted, unclear directions, concepts introduced when they’re not developed till later in the text, distorted interpretations of math terms and applications —that it boggles the mind it got past a content editor. With so many errors rampant at this stage of editing, rewriting is hastily done and it’s only inevitable that some errors will show up in the final printed product. And with a different copyeditor on each book, there are those who don’t even think about, or have the experience to recognize, the content issues so they go unaddressed. For a rate of four dollars a page, most copyeditors will do only what they were hired to do—look for errors and in grammar and punctuation and move on. There's a mortgage due after all.

When I point out critical errors in content to a developer’s project manager, there’s generally a pause at the other end of the phone. I’m ruining their day, handing them a problem they don’t want, can’t possibly address given their resources and time. Some do their best; they’ll ask me to make corrections and bump up my rate a bit. Some will ask me to make notes so that they can fix the errors and do the rewrites themselves on their own time. Others will simply sigh, “The publisher knows it’s bad. Just do the best you can.” The publisher knows it’s bad. And yet, it doesn’t seem to matter. That’s because the sales and marketing team is already at work developing videos, brochures, webinars, catalog copy, and whatever else their bloated budgets will allow in order to sell what doesn’t actually exist—a quality product.

And speaking of the printed product, there’s one more step before we get there—production. These are the people who typeset the books and get them ready for press. India is a favored venue for some publishers because workers are available on three shifts and work fast, but mostly because the price is far cheaper than in the U.S. As editors, we often have to compensate for language barriers by color coding our instructions to the production staff or using simple language that is still frequently misunderstood, resulting in further unintended errors that often make it into the final product because there’s no time left in the schedule, no money left to pay someone, to do a final and thorough review in the manner it should be, and used to be, done.

You may be wondering by now where students fit into the grand plan of these practices. Let’s write and solve and equation to find out: Poorly-executed product (x) + a greater concentration of money spent on marketing to maximize profits (y) = nowhere, that’s where.

One must conclude that students and their education, if this is judged against product quality, is becoming an increasingly low priority. Not only don’t some publishers care, some have no problem expressing their lack of concern. Example: I received an email from a senior math executive of a well-established publisher responding to a concern I raised about the lack of correlations in a particular math series to the Common Core State Standards, correlations that were part of the product specs. The reason they were part of the product specs is because Common Core State Standards have been officially adopted by 43 states (ascd.org) and publishers are racing to make sure their products address them. This is how the senior executive answered my query: “It doesn’t matter if there aren’t enough correlations; our marketing materials say only that we ‘expose’ students to Common Core.”

Not only did this top-level “professional” have no problem stating this, she had no problem committing it to writing. Buyer beware: Read that marketing copy very carefully.

One math series out there is from a well-known textbook publisher incorporating the success of a particular math approach in another country (that’s a hint) into their textbooks. A while back, a group of us was hired to edit and adapt the product for the English-speaking market since it was written overseas. Not much time passed before it was clear that what the product required was not editing but extensive rewriting. One math exercise in a chapter I was assigned called for students to use a math formula to calculate their level of attractiveness, using a mathematical ratio of 1:1.618 (otherwise known as phi or divine proportion), a formula scientists have devised to set standards of beauty. Math can be tough enough for some kids without having to learn that, on top of struggling to apply math formulas to their face, they are also inherently unattractive. Talk about installing math phobia! No publisher in their right mind would allow such a problem to slip into their math books, but what does it say about the hiring practices of publishers and their developers when a writer who believes that such an exercise is appropriate gets a contract? The project was scrapped, but only temporarily. The publisher felt the writers just needed more time to clean up their work. Yeah, that’s all they needed. Meanwhile, the marketing for the product was already developed, prominent on the web and in mass media. And customers likely believed it because of the publisher’s reputation.

A more recent math project I was hired to edit was not only full of content errors, the books were so peculiar in the execution of math concepts and instruction that I hadn’t seen anything like it in all my 20+ years of experience. I asked the project manager if she’d ever seen math approached in this manner. She gave a resigned groan and said no, but this was what the publisher wanted. The books in question were a series of supplemental products designed for struggling students, which is sadly ironic because students of all abilities will indeed struggle to complete the lessons in these books. How could this happen, you might ask? Well, the books were published by a company that was reorganized a few years ago in order to boost profits. That’s when the bulk of the product development staff was let go and the budget for their department slashed. Meanwhile, the marketing and sales departments swelled, as did their budgets. And though many of those in charge now have lofty MBAs, few have little, if any, experience in publishing of any kind, never taught in a classroom, and haven’t the first clue of how to build a coherent educational book from start to finish. The lust for the bottom line—that is how this happens.

At the end of this project, the same project manager mused to me aloud, “I want to know who buys this crap.” Crap. That was the word she used after all her exhausting efforts trying to make a silk purse out of this pig’s ear. My reply to her was, “I want to know who buys it twice.” Because that’s the only way educational publishers make money, on repeat sales. Those books are out there now in print, on the shelves in the publisher’s warehouse, being packed and shipped to a school near you. So who are you people who choose to buy these books? Identify yourselves. Because you, too, a part of the problem.

Don’t get me wrong; they are many responsible educational publishers out there, publishers who are careful to hire teachers or those with a background in education and publishing to produce their materials. But they are becoming the minority. Teachers, curriculum specialists, parents, home schoolers, and anyone interested in the education of this generation of children need to beware. There are those who are capitalizing on established reputations to produce low-budget, low-quality materials with a high-concentration on disingenuous marketing all in the name of priority one—profit. Meanwhile, the people qualified to develop and write sound educational products are leaving the industry in droves to pursue more profitable careers at Wendy’s and Wal-Mart.

And so, I say to parents: Take a good look at the materials your children are bringing home. And to educators: Look at what you’re purchasing. Don’t be satisfied with the classic “thumb through” and don’t take those marketing materials or the sales pitch at face value. Take the time to study the materials; match them to your state’s desired standards and preferred benchmarks. If they’re not a good fit, take a pass and develop your own if you must. The only way kids are going to become better educated through the materials you buy, to increase their rankings among those 30 other countries, is to break the cycle and stop buying those books that are—there’s no other way to put it—crap.


Annie Keeghan is an editor, educational consultant, and a "writer with a novel looking for a good home." If you would like to contact her, please write to Laurie Rogers at wlroge@comcast.net, and I will forward your message to her. Her article is reprinted here with her permission. It was previously published Feb. 17, 2012 at Open Salon.


Note from Laurie Rogers: If you would like to submit a guest column on public education, please write to me at wlroge@comcast.net . Please limit columns to about 1,000 words, give or take a few. Columns might be edited for length, content or grammar. You may remain anonymous to the public, however I must know who you are. All decisions on guest columns are the sole right and responsibility of Laurie Rogers.

Math education: Arguing over false choices

By Dr. Joseph Ganem, professor of physics, Loyola University

"The astronomer may speak to you of his understanding of space, but he cannot give you his understanding.The musician may sing to you of the rhythm which is in all space, but he cannot give you the ear which arrests the rhythm nor the voice that echoes it. And he who is versed in the science of numbers can tell of the regions of weight and measure, but he cannot conduct you thither. For the vision of one man lends not its wings to another man."----Khalil Gibran, "On Teaching," The Prophet

Imagine a football coach who does not spend practices drilling his team and running plays. Instead, players watch videos of football games, analyze and diagram the actions, discuss the reasons that some plays work and others don't, and plan strategies for upcoming games. His reason for this approach is that drill work is tedious, repetitive, and exhausting. Players will enjoy practice much more if they can study the underlying strategies and concepts of football, have engaging discussions, and learn to think like a professional football player.

We would call such a coach delusional, not because of what he is doing, but because of what he is not doing. Obviously everything he is doing needs to be done, but his team will not stand a chance on an actual football field without putting in hours of tedious, repetitive, and exhausting drill work.

For an activity that has a kinesthetic component it is immediately obvious that learning it will only be possible through repetitive drill work. No one would entertain the notion that they could learn to play tennis by watching the Wimbledon tournament on television, learn to play piano by attending a concert at Carnegie Hall, or learn to dance by going to a performance of the New York City ballet. But, if the activity lacks a kinesthetic component somehow, what should still be obvious no longer is.

Consider the debates on math education that have run on for decades. Should students be taught standard algorithms for operations such as multiplication and division and focus on getting correct answers, or should students be taught conceptual thinking and focus on discovering mathematical knowledge on their own? Educators have argued both sides of  this issue, but in reality it is a false choice.

Without a conceptual understanding of math the subject is of little use. Applying math to real-world problems and knowing if the results of a mathematical analysis make sense requires an understanding of the concepts. But, it is not possible to have a conceptual understanding without with the extensive practice, memorization, and drill work needed to achieve computational fluency.

I tell my students that expertise in any subject, math or otherwise, has three components - facts, skills, and understanding. Each of these components is learned in a different way. Facts are static and must be memorized. Skills are actions that must be practiced in order to become proficient. Understanding evolves and comes only through experience and reflection.

This way in which I think about learning is different than the widely influential Bloom's taxonomy. Bloom saw learning as a hierarchical process, while I see it as an iterative process. Bloom saw separate learning domains - cognitive, affective, and psychomotor - that each had their own hierarchy, while I see the iterative learning process as being much the same in each of the different learning domains.

In Bloom's taxonomy, first published in 1956, the hierarchy in the cognitive domain from the bottom up is: knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. In this model of learning, comprehension (or understanding in updated terminology) is necessary before students can actually do something with their new knowledge. Hence many educational reform movements in the decades following the taxonomy have emphasized "conceptual" learning over practice. However, I disagree with the idea that a conceptual understanding is necessary before higher order activities, such as application, analysis, and synthesis can take place, because understanding is an ongoing process.

Chess as Example

For example, consider learning chess. It is an activity without a kinesthetic component hence it would fall under Bloom's cognitive domain of learning. But no one would believe that the game could be mastered without practice, or that novice players could discover the principles of strong play on their own.

To learn chess an aspiring player must memorize the names and movements of the pieces, and the object and rules of the game. These are what I refer to as facts. But the acquisition of skill in playing the game requires a program of study and practice. In order to improve, players must read texts on chess tactics and strategies and attempt to implement those ideas by playing actual games. There is no substitute for practice, but at the same time players must learn additional facts (acquire more knowledge).

However, an understanding of chess evolves in time. A novice, a skilled player, and a grandmaster can all look at the same chess position. The novice will see individual pieces. The skilled player will see groups of pieces. The grandmaster will see the entire position.

But if the grandmaster articulated his understanding of the entire position to the novice, the narrative would be of limited use. The novice would not have the knowledge base and the skills necessary to make sense of most of what a grandmaster would say about a given chess position. But that does not mean that the novice is incapable of applying, analyzing and synthesizing chess ideas. Those ideas might be relatively crude, and obvious to the grandmaster, but the process is necessary to reach a high level of understanding. It is for these reasons that I view learning as an iterative process.

Expertise

Experts are experts because they do think about their subject of expertise differently than novices. But those thought processes cannot be transferred directly to a student, they must develop through study and practice, and there is no shortcut to that development. This should be especially obvious in a subject such as math but apparently it is not.

Many years ago, before calculators and optical scanners had been invented, I made a purchase at a bakery counter tended to by a young woman who had to pencil in prices on the bags of pastries being sold. I asked for 5 donuts priced at 26 cents each. She placed them in a paper bag and on the outside of the bag she computed 26 x 5 using the standard algorithm for multiplication that I, and countless other students, had learned in grade school. She of course was very proficient at multiplication problems using this method, because throughout the day, everyday, a steady stream of customers patronized the bakery counter.

Before she could write out the problem, I said to her: "It's $1.30." She completed the problem, writing all the steps on the bag, and the result was $1.30. Startled by my seeming clairvoyance, she looked at me for an explanation. She knew of no other way to multiply but the standard algorithm, and that process required time and writing. How could I multiply the numbers instantly in my head and arrive at the correct answer?

I said to her: "If the donuts were 20 cents each how much would 5 cost?"
She replied:" A dollar."
I said: "And what is 5 times 6?"
She understood immediately what I had done, but only because she was already proficient at multiplication. If I tried to teach my methods for doing mental math to people not already proficient in the use of standard algorithms, my explanations would lead to confusion rather than enlightenment.

Real learning is iterative, not hierarchical, and it doesn't matter whether the subject is, to use Bloom's terminology, in the cognitive, affective, or psychomotor, learning domains. However, the desire of educators to systematize learning often leads to rigid ideologies riddled with false choices. The argument over whether math instruction should focus on concepts or computation is in many ways analogous to the argument on whether reading instruction should focus on phonics or whole language. Fluent readers use and understand both approaches.

Likewise, learning math is an iterative process that cycles between concepts and computation. Experts in math are proficient in both because it is impossible to master one without the other.

###

Joseph Ganem, Ph.D., is a professor of physics at Loyola University Maryland, and author of the award-winning book on personal finance: The Two Headed Quarter: How to See Through Deceptive Numbers and Save Money on Everything You Buy. It shows how numbers fool consumers when they make financial decisions. For more information on this award-winning book, visit TheTwoHeadedQuarter.com. His article is reprinted here with permission of Dr. Ganem. This article was previously published on The Daily Riff.


Note from Laurie Rogers: If you would like to submit a guest column on public education, please write to me at wlroge@comcast.net . Please limit columns to about 1,000 words, give or take a few. Columns might be edited for length, content or grammar. You may remain anonymous to the public, however I must know who you are. All decisions on guest columns are the sole right and responsibility of Laurie Rogers.

Leadership seems filled with predators and sheep. Where are the sheepdogs?

 By Laurie H. Rogers

"Truth is isolating."
- according to a community member who would know

"It's easy to win when you cheat."
- according to a child who cares about fairness

A good friend of mine, whose perspective I value, said there are three kinds of people in the world: Sheep, sheepdogs and predators. It’s an immediately clarifying way to view oneself and the world. I argued that there are more kinds of people than that. There are:

• sheep pretending to be sheepdogs,
• sheep pretending to be predators,
• predators pretending to be sheep,
• predators pretending to be sheepdogs.

(True sheepdogs don’t pretend to be other than what they are, unless operating undercover. Some need a significant emotional event before finding their inner sheepdog. Some need a break from sheepdoggery, thus making them appear to be sheep. But once awoken to a threat, I think all true sheepdogs begin sheepdogging. Look at what happened after 9-11. And for a powerful look at some real sheepdogs, see the 2012 movie "An Act of Valor.")

My friend shook his head. He accepted my premise, but he said leopards don’t change their spots, thus mixing his metaphors yet nevertheless making his point. The pretense doesn’t change the nature of the beast, he said. A predator pretending to be a sheep still is a predator. A sheep pretending to be a sheepdog still is a sheep. The question is: How much damage does the pretense do, beyond the damage done by the inherent nature of the beast?

I thought about this analogy, while pondering the public-education mess. And make no mistake about it: It’s a mess.

• The mission of sufficient academics is not being accomplished;
• Taxpayers pay through the nose while continually hearing how stingy they are;
• Legislators attempt to undermine the people’s right to make decisions for their children, while also attempting to raise taxes and place more burdens on schools;
• The federal government (via the U.S. Department of Education) is staging what many see as an illegal coup;
• Vendors hover like vultures, waiting to pick at the taxpayer carcass;
• Children struggle, fail, dropout or test into remedial classes that about half cannot pass;
• School districts claim that student data have gone up and budgets have gone down, when the truth for most of us is that student knowledge has gone down and budgets have gone up;
• (Allegedly grass-roots) citizen groups beat voters over the head demanding that we “vote yes” – allegedly for the kids;
• Unions have excessive power with insufficient accountability;
• Media sycophantically suck up to districts while blaming dissenters.

It’s bleak out there, and I wonder, “Where are the sheepdogs?” Everyone in education claims to look out for the people, yet the mess keeps getting worse and more expensive. At one time, we had leaders who fought for the right thing, stood up vocally against the wrong thing, and worked on the people’s behalf rather than for their own interests. Where the heck are they?

Many sheepdogs work in military installations around the country and world. I’ve been lucky to have known several. Quiet sheepdogs in the general population make a living and raise their family. But in leadership, and especially in education leadership, outspoken sheepdogs are hard to find.

No one said being a sheepdog is easy or popular. Standing up to a mob isn’t for sissies. The only people who love sheepdogs are other sheepdogs and a very few sheep. (The predators certainly don’t love them.)

Sheepdogs need courage – not an absence of fear, but a determination to persevere in the face of fear. They must find courage when they don’t feel it. In addition, sheepdogs need knowledge. They have to be able to see the threat in order to fight it. Knowledge is power, which is why the predators work so hard to keep knowledge from them.

Although I have multiple character flaws (just ask my teenager), I really do care – about right and wrong, about the vulnerable, about serving my honor, and about doing my best. We’re all responsible for making wrong things right, even when the going gets tough or we just don't feel like it. But I have run up against a mob, and I believe my values aren’t widely shared there.

From 2007-2012, I came to see that many state and district administrators and superintendents, governors, government appointees, edu-wonks, board directors, union leaders, members of the media, businesspeople who feed off of the public trough, and a disturbing number of elected officials show little sign of knowing or caring what other people’s children are learning -- or about what students know when (or if) they graduate. They don't appear to see their role as providing absolute truth to the people. Instead, their priorities, it seems, are money, ego, power and allies; getting along with the powerful; proving they’re right; pushing their political/social agenda; and squishing out the dissenters.

Some would go so far as to rip the Public Records Act right out of the people’s hands.

• See Spokane Public Schools’ 2012 Legislative Priorities, Item 3B, which was to push for a law that would allow school districts to charge the public for the cost of providing public records. 
• Spokane Sen. Lisa Brown’s bill SB 6576 would require all school districts to charge the public for the cost of providing public records.
• SB 6351 would allow public agencies to limit responses to public records requests. The bill leads with a discussion of inmates, but the new language is written generally, so as to encompass everyone. It allows public agencies (the government) to threaten citizens (the people) with legal action over public records requests, to file for injunctions, and to reject future requests from repeat requesters.
• SB 5062 would place the onus on requesters to know what's missing from public records, and to somehow itemize missing records before taking legal action. It would allow all agencies to take 30 extra days to produce missing records if someone notices their absence, thus avoiding penalties for a willful failure to provide them initially.
• SB 6345 would give eight appointed people the power to redo state government. Meetings would not be subject to the Public Records Act, or to the Open Meetings Act. Decisions could be made in executive sessions that exclude the public. Proposals may not be amended in committee, and passed bills would be final. (That's a little kingdom, right there.)

SB 6576 and SB 6351 would effectively eliminate the Public Records Act -- a people's initiative -- for 99% of the citizens. SB 5062 would take the teeth out of the Act. SB 6345 would exempt eight citizens from open-government laws. These bills don’t reflect concern for the public’s will, needs or best interests. They don’t reflect concern for truth, transparency or full disclosure. And why would a school district work for a bill that would remove the public's ability to know what it's doing?

In 2011, I asked a board director who remained silent in a public meeting about math, “Why didn’t you tell the people the truth?” His answer: “It wouldn’t be good for me.” I asked a principal who remained silent why he didn’t speak up. “I just came to watch.” I asked a teacher who remained silent why she didn’t speak up. “I was scared.” Later, I asked a legislative aide why his boss didn't help me with my efforts. “He’s staying out of it,” was the answer.

K-12 education isn’t supposed to be about the adults. (Naturally, the adults don't appear to see it that way.) The schools’ mission is to impart sufficient academics. If they don’t do that, they have failed. Clearly, children aren’t being adequately prepared, yet we keep hearing that things are improving and they just need a tighter grip on our wallet. Do we even have any sheepdogs in district leadership?

Some teachers appear to be sheepdogs, although being a teacher and a sheepdog in Spokane certainly is fraught with peril. When a local teacher put on an excellent candidate forum last election season, she faced harsh union/district/media pushback, as if she had done something wrong. More to the point, district employees again got the message: Do NOT speak up. At all. (And they don't.)

But those who care about the children must find a way to speak up … or risk being complicit.

Meanwhile, parents have been called "sheep" by various so-called leaders. The 1% in charge gives parents a warped view of the school district and its outcomes, then blames them and calls them sheep. Parents and teachers don’t realize how their views have been shaped by hidden agendas, little real accountability or transparency, pots of money, barrels of ink, and/or few apparent scruples. They don’t know that most high-school graduates and college hopefuls leave the K-12 system with few usable skills in math or grammar. And they don't know that many in leadership and the media chose to not leave their kids to founder in a failing public system.

It’s time we reconsidered who’s in the 1%. We’ve been well-trained to think of the 1% as Wall Street “fat cats” and execs in large companies who care more about profits than people. But the 1% isn’t just about money. It’s also about political influence, opportunities and social position.

The 1% includes district superintendents, board directors and administrators who seem more interested in ego, money, power and pet education theories than in the children. The 1% includes union leadership – accountable to almost no one – which uses its clout to heavily influence elections and ballot propositions. The 1% includes influential, allegedly “grass-roots” groups such as the League of Education Voters, Stand for Children, and Citizens for Spokane Schools (CFSS).

CFSS spread its well-heeled influence around Spokane with daily ads in the newspaper (“vote yes”), huge billboards (“vote yes”), signs everywhere (“vote yes,”) and an embarrassing amount of media assistance (“vote yes”). How much money was that, anyway? A more accurate name for CFSS might be: “Citizens – Using Pots of Money from Somebody to Get More of Your Tax Dollars.”

The 1% includes a huge number of legislators who seem unaware of the real problems in public education. “I know a lot about it,” a representative assured me. Yet, they push tax increases, useless mandates and counterproductive programs on all of us. How many have actually examined district budgets, claims, curricula, outcomes, election activity, threats or expenditures?

The 1% encompasses most of Congress, along with certain people in the White House.

The 1% includes Bill Gates, who carries a perplexing amount of influence over public education, despite the fact that he and other corporatists aren’t accountable to the public for this influence in any real way. When you have pockets as deep as his, everyone listens, whether or not a) you know what you’re talking about, b) you’re effective, or c) it’s appropriate for you to interfere. Math advocates can’t get a sliver of respect anywhere, whereas Gates can get it while still in his jammies.

The 1% includes the U.S. Department of Education, the NGA, CCSSO, Achieve, the WEA, NEA, AFT, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Broad Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, Texas Instruments, Pearson Education, OSPI, Educational Service Districts, most of the media, and many other people and groups who work with the districts, make money off the districts, hope to make money off the districts, or just prefer to hang out with the 1%.

I wonder: How many sheepdogs are in that 1%? Sheepdogs wouldn’t stand by while children are harmed by loopy edu-fads. Sheepdogs wouldn’t allow taxpayers to be ripped off, voters to be obstructed, and parents to be deceived (then blamed). Sheepdogs wouldn’t dream of saving their own children and then staying silent as other people’s children are betrayed.

True sheepdogs know the job is tough, there are barriers, others will obstruct – perhaps even be dangerous –and that there are consequences to being a sheepdog, but they accept that the job is the job, what’s right is right, and it’s their job to protect the flock. Education sheepdogs are knowledgeable and experienced, with solid research and data. The predators and sheep have little more than, “We want it this way.” Yet, despite our solid arguments, public education doesn’t change – other than to cost us more as it continues to deteriorate.

And so I wonder: How many of the “sheep” and how many of the “sheepdogs” in government and leadership actually are the predators, just engaging in pretense? Or, perhaps, and this is generous, living in denial.


P.S. For a powerful look at some real sheepdogs, see the 2012 movie "An Act of Valor," in which key roles are played by active-duty SEALS.
Honest, unflinching and disturbingly realistic, "An Act of Valor" is a rare show of respect from the entertainment industry for the nation's military. I tip my hat to all of those involved.

Please note: The information in this post is copyrighted.
The proper citation is: Rogers, L. (February 2012). “Leadership seems filled with predators and sheep. Where are the sheepdogs?" Retrieved (date) from the Betrayed Web site: http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailing.blogspot.com/

This article was published Feb. 19, 2012 on Education Views at: http://educationviews.org/2012/02/19/leadership-seems-filled-with-predators-and-sheep-where-are-the-sheepdogs/

Media, district levy advocacy not appropriate, not leadership

[Edited Feb. 9. Addition noted below.]

By Laurie H. Rogers

"And I tell you this: you do not lead by hitting people over the head. Any damn fool can do that, but it's usually called 'assault' – not 'leadership'.”     

--     Dwight D. Eisenhower, as told to Emmet John Hughes, for “Re-Viewing the Cold War: Domestic Factors and Foreign Policy in the East-West Confrontation”

Last year, someone said to me: “Laurie, I heard you’re a nut job. So tell me, who are you, really?” I said: “You’ve heard me talk. What do you think?” The person chuckled and said: “I kind of like you. I think you care.”

I do care. I have a fierce protective instinct toward the community, the country, and the children. I’m a patriot, but no politician. I’m not interested in making money or gaining political allies through District 81, the union or the media. I was trained as an old-style reporter, with an eye to supportable facts and a determination to know and report the truth. I’m not a natural extrovert, but five years of dealing with administrators and board directors have turned me into a fighter. I’m not a liar, and I’m no quitter, and I don’t know how to do just the bare minimum of anything (except dusting).

In my mind, the truth is the truth, and I’m not inclined to sugar-coat truth so as to avoid aggravating little feelings or interfering with grasping for dollars. People can call that polarizing or extremist. I think those people don’t want to be sidelined by the truth.

I was thinking about the face in the mirror Jan. 30, as I was blown off yet again by a local reporter who wanted me to fit into her agenda. She called because she wanted to talk with local businessman Duane Alton about his opposition to local levies. She couldn’t find Alton, and she heard I might be part of his group. I told the reporter I’m not part of Alton’s group, and not necessarily “anti-levy” but rather “pro-disclosure.” I said the districts were not giving voters full information (or even truthful information, I could have said), and they were not engaging in full disclosure.

After exactly two minutes, having determined that I wasn’t going to fit into the story the way she wanted, the reporter asked if she could call back. I smiled, knowing she wouldn’t. Her TV report and subsequent article painted the levy discussion as polarized, with the poor, allegedly underfunded district on one side, and the evil “mysterious” anti-levy folks on the other. There was no mention of the solid and supportable information I have put together on the Spokane levy. The reporter offered no questioning of the districts’ claims, and no contrary information. Other local TV stations have reported in a similar fashion.

[Added Feb. 9: Another reporter called recently, also wanting to know if I was working with the anti-levy group (whatever "working with" means). I told him that my associations and leanings have nothing to do with the issues, and that he should do some real investigating of the school district, its budget, its claims, and its presentation of information to the public. I offered him my entire blog for quoting. After a lengthy off-the-record conversation, this is his report.
... sigh ...

Note to self: The words "No" and "comment" are your friends, especially when stated together.]

Local media are complicit in their willful failure to properly inform the public about education issues that affect our children and community. Have you seen Spokane lately? I mean, really looked around? Empty buildings, “for lease” signs everywhere. This city is suffocating, slowly choking on an undereducated, unmotivated, frightened populace. And rather than inform us about those who perpetuate this failure, the media are “hitting us over the head” with fake information and fake district claims.

Despite the possibly illegal, certainly inappropriate and arguably false activity all around them, the media instead polarize the conversation in favor of the districts, and they hound people who are doing something they believe in and who are breaking no election laws. It’s pitiful.

Notice the daily “vote for the levy” drumbeat in the local newspapers. An article here, an editorial there, pro-levy advertisements strategically placed every single day. In this ad, see all of the people who advocate for the levy -- while they work for the district, make money off the district, or align politically with the district. There are “vote yes” signs everywhere in the city. Flyers are sent home with the kids. There is open advocating in the schools, with “pro-levy” commentary to children and “Vote for the kids” buttons. The districts’ supposedly “factual” information often is actually promotional, highly subjective, and designed to frighten us, make us feel guilty, and, most of all, push us to vote “yes.” They are leading by hitting us over the head, and it’s all done at an extra cost to us.

• In Spokane, the district pounds the pavement in support of the levy, using numbers they cannot or will not support.
• In East Valley, the superintendent compares dissenters to “noise” and misbehaving children.
• In other districts, such as Monroe, administrators or board directors have openly advocated via a pro-levy Web site.
• In Central Valley, a flyer threatens to cut teachers and programs if the levy doesn’t pass (page 1 and page 2).
• In Mead, the school district Web site also threatens cuts.

Keep this in mind: These talks of possible "cuts" in programs and teaching positions qualify as threats, not facts. As long as districts have school directors, multiple assistant principals, expenditures for a new data system (and new administrators to go with it) and a new, unproved national program, they have places to cut. As long as districts keep torturing teachers with "professional development" and interfering instructional coaches, and as long as districts keep flipping inadequate curricula and supplementary materials in and out, they have places to cut. As long as ineffective administrators make more than $100,000 per year just in base salary, districts have places to cut.

Many of the people making these threats about cutting teaching positions and programs have no compunction about using the children, either, sending home flyers with them, pulling them out of class to talk about campaigning, and showing them pro-levy material on a daily basis.

A parent in Central Valley wrote to me Jan. 30: “I was so heartbroken for my son, when this morning he said to me and his mother: ‘Vote for the levy.’ I responded, ‘I will not be voting for the levy.’ He then began to cry and said 60 teachers will be losing their jobs…. I asked him who told him (that). He answered his teacher. I responded understandingly, but in the negative, and he asked, ‘Why would my teacher lie to me’? Then, ‘She wouldn't lie to me.’ I said, ‘I wouldn't lie to you. You know that, right?’ I asked him who he believes, and he responded after several seconds, ‘I guess you.’ He was genuinely perplexed.”

The father expressed a desire to sue the district over the emotional distress on his son. “Good thing for them I am not a sue-happy American,” he wrote.

Meanwhile, our children are being raised academically feral. Left on their own to figure things out – and not provided sufficient guidance, discipline, academics or individual work – they are incapable of following their dreams when they leave high school.

Carol Landa-McVicar, trustee of Community Colleges of Spokane, told The Spokesman-Review recently: “We are not graduating enough kids from high school, and when we do, they are coming to college unprepared, delaying their progression to a higher education degree. … how do we address the high number of students that are coming into the college who need remedial math?”

A local politician told me, “You have to work with somebody,” as he refused to lift a finger to help me. I can’t work with people who lie, who want me to lie, or who don’t care about what matters to the children. And I do work with others. When I show parents and grandparents what’s being taught and not taught, they see it right away. They don’t call me names, accuse me of lying or suggest that I’m the problem. They see me for what I am: Just the messenger, delivering to them a critically important message that they need to hear.

So, I work with We, the People. I work for the children. I help teachers where I can. I work for academics. I work for math. I work for this country. I work for the future, and I work for what’s right.

My efforts, my insistence on solid, provable information, and my refusal to play purposefully polarizing games aren’t respected by the district, the school board, the media, or various “players” in the city. But my family respects it, and the people respect it. I suspect the folks on the “anti-levy” side also respect it.

I'm trying to help parents and grandparents learn enough to step in and save their children from these grasping, self-interested school districts and the sycophantic media. And that’s what matters.



Please note: The information in this post is copyrighted.
The proper citation is: Rogers, L. (January 2012). "Media, district levy advocacy not appropriate, not leadership." Retrieved (date) from the Betrayed Web site: http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailing.blogspot.com/

This article was reposted on Education Views Feb. 3, 2012 at: http://educationviews.org/2012/02/03/media-district-levy-advocacy-not-appropriate-not-leadership/

Hold district accountable for deceit, academic failure and questionable activity

“Where ignorance is bliss, ignorance of ignorance is sublime.” – Paul Dunham

By Laurie H. Rogers

Last week, I went to a Spokane Public Schools math presentation at Indian Trail Elementary School. It was billed as a forum in the school newsletter and on the reader board outside of the school. It was not, in any way, a forum. It was a tightly controlled 20-minute presentation that offered no data, little information, allowed for no parent input and was patronizing in tone.

At one point, parents were asked to define math to the person next to us. (The principal said he would not offer his definition.) We also were told to describe to our neighbor a math experience we’d had. These conversations ended right there, thus being pointless. We watched a video of several small children talking about the importance of math. The kids were cute, but the video was long. It was made clear to us that math is hard, parents don’t get it (see slide 7 of the presentation), “traditional math” is no longer useful, and math is intimidating to all. Printed materials reinforced the idea of parent incompetence, with students supposedly “taking the lead” and teaching their parents.

Parents were warned to stay positive about math, however, despite our supposed fear and lack of skill, and we also were told what a “balanced” program looks like – as if that’s what Spokane actually has.

What a ridiculous, condescending mess. The person who put this presentation together should be fired immediately.

Initially, the principal told us that questions could be asked, but when a parent raised her hand to do that (before the end of the presentation), she was told to write her question on a piece of paper. Another parent’s hand was in the air for a while until I called out, “Excuse me! This parent would like to ask you a question.” That parent said she wanted to hear the first parent’s question. The principal said there was no time. Voice inflection is a subjective thing, but I’m not the only one who was shocked at the principal’s snippy tone.

Hovering around the “forum” were three central-office administrators – elementary math coordinator Kim Dennis, and executive directors Irene Gonzales and Lorna Spear. Dennis and Gonzales did not answer questions, disappearing immediately after the presentation. A few parents waited to ask questions of the principal. He had to be called back into the gym, and he appeared reluctant to come back or to stay. Spear showed up briefly to herd the principal back out of the gym. Almost $400,000 in base salary for these four individuals, and not one wanted to answer a question from a parent. Clearly, the district doesn’t understand the meaning of the word “forum.”

Dear District: At “forums,” attendees are supposed to be allowed to get a word in.

After my five years of math advocacy; after the “Betrayed” blog and the “Betrayed” book; after several math forums last year; and after the people’s complaints in school board meetings, emails, and letters to the editor – you would think the district would change course on reform math. District staff still talk about how basic math has “changed,” (no, it hasn’t), and still wax poetic about how students learn better when they struggle through it, get things wrong initially, work constantly in groups, and learn inefficient methods first. The district remains willfully, sublimely ignorant.

Last week’s non-forum at Indian Trail is just one of several in the district. Their goal isn’t to learn something – it’s to prove something. Unfortunately, that “something” isn’t true, which is why the presentations tend to be weak, pitiful and patronizing, with wrong information, leaps of logic, lots of dead space, multiple appeals to parent emotion, and zero actual data. The district knows the community is increasingly concerned about math. These “forums” appear to be their response to those concerns – and to my forums from last year. It seems they want to convince us that we’re wrong.

A year ago, from January through March, two STEM professionals and I put on several public forums, designed to talk about Spokane’s execrable math curricula. These reform curricula, used in Spokane now for a few decades, have been criticized across the country since their inception. In spite of concerns from parents and mathematicians, Washington State followed along with reform math, as most states did. Millions of taxpayer dollars in Spokane, and billions across the country, have been wasted and continue to be wasted on these inadequate materials. Our children’s futures – and the country’s future – have been devastated by how math is approached in our public schools.

Here is one example I’ve seen. In this instance, a 4th-grade teacher was teaching the adding of fractions by connecting the fractions to money. Each denominator had to fit into 100 so it could be part of a dollar. The children were to change numerators correspondingly. The numerators were brought down to the next line, but the denominators weren't brought down, so the fractions suddenly became whole numbers (although they were actually parts of a dollar). The numerators were added, and the result was turned into a decimal, by mentally dividing it by 100. (This was a separate step, which leads one to think the 50 cents and 25 cents were thought of as whole numbers.) At any rate, the decimal was changed back into a fraction, the fraction was reduced, and it was plunked back at the top as the answer. I saw no actual work done on the white board. Like this:

½ + ¼ = ?
50 cents plus 25 cents = 75 cents
50 cents plus 25 cents = .75
½ + ¼ = ¾

This is just ignorant. The children seemed lost. This is a poor method, using poor process, and it won’t work well for problems like 1/8 + 1/3. There is no excuse for this. It was painful to watch. I looked sadly at those little kids, aware that most of them are probably doomed, mathematically speaking.

So, last year, my colleagues and I wanted to talk with the public about reform math, about the history of these materials and about how the efficient math algorithms have been purposefully perverted, undermined and dismantled. We wanted to hear parent experiences, to offer a look at real student data, and to suggest avenues for how parents can save their children. For maximum public access, we made the forums free and held them at public libraries. This meant we had to let in whoever came.

Parents and grandparents came to the forums and expressed concerns. The district also came – a large, intimidating block of people whose presence scared potential allies into silence. At the time, I didn’t know this block of people had been purposefully gathered.

District administrators spent working time and public resources building a schedule of people to come to our forums. They pushed repeatedly for staff attendance and wrote “talking points” for them. Clearly, they did NOT want us to talk about the math curriculum. At our Feb. 7, 2011, forum, administrators tolerated and encouraged abysmal behavior from their staff. We three volunteers – who brought solid data, noble intentions, and concern for the children – were mocked and interrupted, and told that student outcomes were “irrelevant.” District staff continually pushed us off our topic of choice, interrupting us to do so. When we tried to quiet them, we were accused of interrupting. District personnel who might have spoken up in our defense were silent.

Never in my years of advocacy had I ever seen such rudeness. Far from reining it in, district leadership initiated it and kept it going. Could we have handled the Feb. 7 forum better? Sure. We learned from that experience, and it would not go that way again. In my view, however, the district administrators responsible should have been fired on the spot.

On Feb. 7, administrator Tammy Campbell interrupted me three times in the first 18 minutes of my presentation. Asked to be quiet, she talked over top of us and other community members. Associate Superintendent Karin Short interrupted me to tell parents I was misrepresenting student outcomes. (It was district data I was writing on the white board.) A district staff member twice said I might be the reason student scores had dropped. When I tried to get Campbell to answer a question about student outcomes, she refused. The next day, The Spokesman-Review criticized us and called us district “antagonists” – without ever speaking with us or offering any helpful information to the public.

Instead of disciplining Campbell and Short, the district leadership, and Board Director Bob Douthitt were filled with sympathy. Immediate plans were made to hold district math forums (to present “our message,” as Douthitt put it, where, supposedly, “some truth” would be provided).

And there you have it: math “forums” like the one last week at Indian Trail, where cute kids replaced real information, where parents weren’t allowed to ask questions in public, and where $100,000+ administrators wouldn’t answer questions or even stick around.

Do you feel respected now? Do you believe your taxpayer dollars are being spent wisely?

Over the last few months, the district has been promoting its $73 million levy, up for a vote Feb. 14. The Public Disclosure Commission has launched a formal investigation of Spokane Public Schools’ election activity in 2009 and 2011. The PDC probably could investigate 2012 activity as well.

Do you trust the district? Do you believe them? Do you think they have the best interests of your children and grandchildren at heart? See the remedial rates (and the success rates in those remedial classes) of recent Spokane graduates who attended Spokane Community Colleges. Do you think the students are leaving Spokane Public Schools well educated and ready for post-secondary life? Do you think the quality of education in Spokane is fueling the local economy, providing job-ready, innovation-ready graduates? Do you think it’s OK that the district threatens the public and teachers over an alleged 800 education jobs and various enrichment programs, while they spend our tax dollars on more administration, bigger salaries, an unnecessary, unproved data system and an unproved, arguably illegal federal plan? Do you think the district is listening to you, to me, to the community or to the law?

If you say yes to all, then by all means, vote for the levy. But if you see the district as wasteful, deceitful, manipulative, bullying, law-breaking, and/or clueless about math, grammar and other necessary academic skills, then please take a hard look at your levy ballot when it comes out in a few days.

I believe the district does listen to money. Maybe that’s the only thing.



Please note: The information in this post is copyrighted. The proper citation is: Rogers, L. (January 2012). "Hold districts accountable for deceit, academic failures and questionable activity." Retrieved (date) from the Betrayed Web site: http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailing.blogspot.com/  

This article was republished Jan. 25, 2012, on Education News at: http://www.educationnews.org/k-12-schools/laurie-rogers-hold-districts-accountable-for-deceit-academic-failure/

Yes, vote for kids by asking the adult questions about school levies

By Laurie H. Rogers


In Eastern Washington, voters are being asked to approve school district levies in a Feb. 14 election. Spokane residents might have seen one or two or 10 billion signs about it strategically placed around the city. I saw a “vote yes for kids” sign at City Hall, tacked to the incoming side of the city bulletin board. I mentioned it to a woman at the counter, and she took it down.

Twice on its front page, The Spokesman-Review published pro-levy material that (to a journalist), can only be seen as full-page advertisements. First was “Anatomy of a Levy.” Then there was “Faces of a Levy.” Where can it go from there? Ears of a Levy? Elbows of a Levy? Butt-cheeks of a Levy?

Meanwhile, the union president published a pro-levy article in the KIDS Newspaper, and the school district helpfully delivered that pro-levy article to elementary schools and students across the city.

Clearly, the district, union and newspaper want us to support the levy. Some local advocates would rather we not. Whatever you decide, please don’t just stay home. If just three people vote on the levy, it will pass or fail based on the three votes. As you’re bombarded with a heavy emotional campaign to “vote yes for the kids,” however, here are a few things to consider.

The district says: Education funding has been cut/gutted/slashed.

The education machine complains that education funding has been cut. This is a government definition of “cut,” where “cutting” doesn’t make the thing smaller. Local, state and federal education dollars keep going up.

Look at financial reports for your district. For Washington State districts, view the F-195 reports. (On the drop-down menu, choose your school district. Scroll down to each F-195 report.) You might be surprised at what you find. For example, Spokane Public Schools has repeatedly said that, over 10 years, its budget was cut by – pick a number they’ve used -- $64 million, $54 million, $45 million… But its operating budget actually has grown from 2002 to this year – the budgeted amount by $60 million, and the actual expenditures by $80 million.

Calculate costs per full-time-enrolled (FTE) student. In Spokane schools:

• 2001-2002 actual operating costs:  $7,857 per student ($236.9 million / 30,151 FTE students).
• 2001-2002 actual costs for all expenses (operating, transportation, capital projects, debt service and student fund): $8,944 per student ($269.7 million / 30,151 FTE students).
• 2011-2012 operating costs: more than $11,000 per student ($313.3 million / 28,093 FTE students).
• 2011-2012 costs for all expenses: more than $17,000 per student ($495.7 million / 28,093 FTE students).

Are you shocked? Well, of course you are. Education money has NOT been cut; it’s been shifted. We can thank legislators for some of the shift, but districts also were allowed to shift dollars away from actual learning, and so they did. Now, they want more dollars.

Examine the budgets and see where the money went. Not all certificated positions are classroom teachers, and not all dollars for “teaching” are classroom expenditures. Included are a flood of useless curricula and supplementary material, plus school directors, executive directors, associate superintendents, assistant superintendents, instructional coaches, assistant principals and layers of administrators who aren’t held responsible for the results of their policies and curriculum choices.

Where in the budget do we find legal expenses? Where are the expenses for promotions of levies and bonds; for special elections for levies and bonds; and for the unproved multi-million-dollar federal vision? Where are the expenses for remediation, drop-out programs, counseling, professional development, curriculum supplements, and other supports – much of which wouldn’t be necessary if the district would allow teachers to directly teach good-quality material? It’s all in there somewhere, and we’re paying for it.

The district says: Budget increases are due to inflation.

As districts say budgets have been cut, they also say inflation explains budget increases (thus trying to have it both ways). The point about inflation is valid, however, so I did a calculation for Spokane using the CPI calculator. (Disclaimer: Not all costs have grown similarly. My calculation is a rough estimate which anyone could refute as being too high or too low.)

If the CPI is any indication, inflation’s impact on the bottom line was greater than I expected. The result was still an increase over 10 years, beyond the rate of inflation, and even as full-time student enrollment dropped by thousands, and classified and certificated staff also decreased. Do the calculation for your own district. The result might surprise you.

The district says: The levy pays for a huge chunk of the budget.

Spokane Public Schools says its levy pays for about 23.4% of its $313.3 million budget. Well, sure it does. Small levies pay for a smaller percentage; big levies pay for a greater percentage. If you want people to vote for the levy, you have to motivate them, and panic can be highly motivational.

Consider that in 2001-2002, the levy paid for just 14% of the district’s $236.9 million operating budget. The fact that the levy now pays for a greater percentage of an exponentially larger operating budget should make it clear how much the levy itself has increased. Not including the state Levy Equalization Assistance – Spokane’s levy has grown by 74% over 10 years, from $35 million in 2001-2002 to $61 million (net) in 2011-2012. All of this is for fewer students.

Forcing the levy to take on a bigger role in the budget makes it harder for voters to reject it. But where does the money go? Is ALL of this money necessary? How much does it cost to educate a child? Obviously, big money doesn’t automatically equate to a sufficient education; most of our public-school graduates are not academically ready for college.

The district says: Levies are restricted to 28% of state and federal funds.

You’ll love this one. By law, district levies are restricted to a percentage of the tax money received from state and federal governments (known as the levy base). The original limit was 10% of the levy base, set in 1977. The limit was increased over the years, to the current limit of 28%. Ninety districts, however, can raise more than 28%. Spokane’s limit is 28.18% (so not actually 28%).

Because of this percentage limit, if state and federal dollars go down, the allowable levy dollars also should go down. That isn’t what happened. School districts do say that state and federal dollars have been cut (again, it depends on which year, which dollars, and which expenses are chosen for comparison), but levy dollars have not dropped. I asked local administrators about this seeming contradiction, and they indicated that levy dollars are now based partially on pretend money. Here’s how that works.

Legislators decided to “protect” districts’ levy base from negative “changes in state and federal revenue sources.” (See RCW 84.52.0531, 4ii)  Districts are allowed to base levies on dollars that would have been received had there been more revenue. The Spokane superintendent called it “ghost money.” I asked her what the levy limit for Spokane is, then, since it isn’t 28%. She hastened to say that it is 28%: “It’s 28% of what it would have been.”

You can’t make up this stuff.

The district says: We’ve cut all that we can from the budget.

As the Spokane district complains about budget shortages, it’s spending money in new ways such as the Common Core initiatives – the federal vision for public education. The district is budgeting $4 million for a new data system and new administrators to manage the data system. It socked away $2 million for the K-8 portion of a national math curriculum it hadn’t even seen. That’s $6 million, for just this small piece of the Common Core initiatives.

Extrapolate these costs to the state. Washington has 295 districts. If they spend what Spokane is spending, it will cost taxpayers across the state $1.77 billion (295 districts x $6 million). Extrapolate the costs to the country. America has about 14,000 districts. If they spend what Spokane is spending, it will cost taxpayers across the country $84 billion (14,000 x $6 million).

And that's just a small piece of the Common Core. There is more to come – high school math, English, science … The Secretary of Education has said he wants national (i.e. federal) standards in all subjects. It will cost this country trillions of dollars, for an untested, unproved federal plan.

Meanwhile, Spokane continues to flip curricula. In 2006, it spent a half a million for the execrable Core-Plus program, now junked. In 2010, it adopted the better Holt Mathematics textbooks for a half a million, now ignored. Administrators have since pushed a deeply flawed in-house math program on teachers … while also paying for supplementary materials for the middle schools … on top of the 40 pages of titles of other materials for all subjects … And now, they're apparently willing to toss much of it to adopt the unproved federal vision.

On Jan. 4, I asked Associate Superintendent Mark Anderson why the district is adopting the unproved Common Core when it’s supposedly strapped for funds. He said they have to do it, which is not true. He said the district has cut elsewhere to pay for the initiatives. Apparently, the cuts include instructional assistants, special education specialists, and summer school.

The district says: The levy helps keep class sizes “reasonable.”

In its levy presentations, Spokane Public Schools has repeatedly claimed that the levy helps keep class sizes at “reasonable” levels. But class sizes in Spokane are pretty much maxed out, limited by the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

The district says: 800 jobs are at risk.

Spokane administrators said 800 jobs are at risk if the levy doesn’t pass. Three years ago, when SPS was promoting its 2009 bond and levy, supposedly 300 jobs were at risk. The district said this 500-job difference is because state funding was cut. Let’s look at some numbers, per the state education agency:

• One year ago: State funds (general purpose) are less today than one year ago, by about $2 million, which doesn’t seem like enough to pay for 500 jobs. However, special purpose funds are slightly more today than one year ago.
• Two years ago: State funds (general purpose and special purpose) are more today than they were two years ago, by about $5 million altogether.
• Three years ago: State funds (general purpose) are more today by about $3 million. Special purpose funds are about $9 million less today than they were in 2008-2009, due to the $10 million cut in Student Achievement funds (I-728). Otherwise, state funds are more today than three years ago, and fairly close to what they were four years ago.

Three years ago, 300 jobs supposedly were at risk. This year, supposedly one-quarter of the district’s 3,226-member workforce is in peril. Do you believe that? In a Jan. 9 presentation to City Council, the district acknowledged that the figure of 3,226 represents full-time employees only, whereas the 800 at-risk jobs include full-time and part-time employees. Assuming that 800 jobs actually are at risk – that’s closer to one-sixth of all positions, and not all are full-time.

The district says: Programs are at risk if the levy doesn’t pass.

The district continually threatens cuts in music, sports, the gifted program and others if the levy doesn’t pass. These threats effectively hold those programs hostage. If we pay up, our programs will supposedly continue to live. Would the district really cut the gifted program? Odyssey brings in money, is utilized by board directors and administrators for their own children, and is such a useful manipulative tool. Taxpayers have yet to call the district’s bluff on the levy; most taxpayers don’t know they probably should question whether these threats are appropriate, factual or even legal.

The district says: Its levy presentations are “factual” and “strictly adhere” to the law.

I don’t think so. I believe certain district employees violated RCW 42.17.130 in 2009 in campaigning for the bond and levy, and in 2011 while campaigning or assisting in campaigning for board candidate Deana Brower. The Public Disclosure Commission is investigating.

Why vote for the levy?

Why would we vote for the levy? Why do we buy any product? Let's remove the emotion, the "it's for the kids," and the threats -- Let's ask the mature questions of those people doing their best to frighten us, persuade us, make us feel guilty, and tug on our heartstrings. Ask them:

• Compared with ten years ago, how much of the 2012 levy would go to the actual classrooms and to actual classroom teachers? How much to "enrichment" activities?
• Compared with ten years ago, how much of the 2012 levy would go to central-office administrators? How much to building administrators? How much to certificated staff members who aren’t actually working this year as classroom teachers?
• Why is the district spending millions of tax dollars on new items, such as the unproved Common Core initiatives, even as it complains to the public about how short it is on dollars?

I do believe taxpayers should vote for school levies IF the dollars are critical to student outcomes, and IF the district is efficient, academically sufficient, thrifty, accountable, truthful, honorable and law-abiding. Does your district fit these parameters? What if the “vote yes for kids” signs instead said:

• Vote yes for administrator salary increases and benefits
• Vote yes for an unproved, unfunded, arguably illegal federal takeover of public education
• Vote yes for union political activity that goes by its own rules
• Vote yes for wasted dollars, on things that don’t help children learn
• Vote yes for deceitful presentations of student outcomes and manipulative district behavior
• Vote yes for substantial remediation for your child at the local community college

Levy dollars definitely drive the district trains. Those trains are going in a happy little direction for the adults, but – for the kids – they are seriously, woefully off the tracks. This year, for the kids, please ask questions, please weigh the veracity of the answers you get, and then please vote by Feb. 14.

Please note: The information in this post is copyrighted. The proper citation is:
Rogers, L. (January 2012). "Yes, vote for kids by asking the adult questions about school levies." Retrieved (date) from the Betrayed Web site: http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailing.blogspot.com/

This article was published Jan. 16, 2012 on EducationViews at: http://educationviews.org/2012/01/16/yes-vote-for-kids-by-asking-the-adult-questions-about-school-levies/

This article also was published Jan. 17, 2012 on EducationNews at:
http://www.educationnews.org/k-12-schools/laurie-rogers-vote-for-kids-by-asking-adult-questions-about-school-levies/