Statement from Laurie Rogers:
In the Fall of 2009, I applied to be and was accepted as a parent member of Spokane's latest high school math curriculum adoption committee. All committee members were given a single book as a resource for decision-making. Concerned about the heavily reform/constructivist/poorly argued nature of that single book, I compiled a list of research suggested to me by generous math/science/research/education professionals across the country.
Below is a list of those suggestions, including a small portion of the research, data and commentary I have compiled over 3 years of research into K-12 public education. I offered this complete list, and much of the actual research, on a CD to each committee member.
This information was not discussed nor subsequently referenced in the committee meeting, but the district's executive director of instructional programs did agree a few days later to my request to post the list alongside their other committee documents on the Spokane Public Schools Web site. They've called it "Committee Research Contributions."
If you have other research or information to offer to this curriculum adoption committee, please write to me at wlroge@comcast.net.
Offered to Spokane Public Schools High School Math Curriculum Adoption Committee
November 9, 2009, from Laurie Rogers, committee member
Data, Research Papers:
“A Brief History of American K-12 Mathematics Education in the 20th Century” (2003)
Dr. David Klein, California State Northridge
“(NCTM math programs of the 1990s) typically failed to develop fundamental arithmetic and algebra skills. Elementary school programs encouraged students to invent their own arithmetic algorithms, while discouraging the use of the superior standard algorithms for addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division. Calculator use was encouraged to excess, and in some cases calculators were even incorporated into kindergarten lesson plans. Student discovery group work was the preferred mode of learning, sometimes exclusively, and the guidelines for discovery projects were at best inefficient and often aimless. Topics from statistics and data analysis were redundant from one grade level to the next, and were overemphasized. Arithmetic and algebra were radically de-emphasized. Mathematical definitions and proofs for the higher grades were generally deficient, missing entirely, or even incorrect.”
http://www.csun.edu/~vcmth00m/AHistory.html
Achievement Effects of Four Early Elementary School Math Curricula Findings from First Graders in 39 Schools (2009)
Roberto Agodini, et al.
“Eight of the fifteen subgroup analyses found statistically significant differences in student math achievement between curricula. The significant curriculum differences ranged from 0.28 to 0.71 standard deviations, and all of the significant differences favored Math Expressions or Saxon over Investigations or SFAW. There were no subgroups for which Investigations or SFAW showed a statistically significant advantage.”
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20094052/pdf/20094052.pdf
A Close Examination of Jo Boaler’s Railside Report (undated)
Wayne Bishop, Cal. State; Paul Clopton, VAMC; R. James Milgram, Stanford
“This study makes extremely strong claims for discovery style instruction in mathematics, and consequently has the potential to affect instruction and curriculum throughout the country.
… Prof. Boaler has refused to divulge the identities of the schools to qualified researchers. Consequently, it would normally be impossible to independently check her work. However, in this case, the names of the schools were determined and a close examination of the actual outcomes in these schools shows that Prof. Boaler’s claims are grossly exaggerated and do not translate into success for her treatment students.”
ftp://math.stanford.edu/pub/papers/milgram/combined-evaluations-version3.pdf
Spokane AP Exam Results - 1992-2008;
Spokane AP Exam Results by School – 2007-08
In 2000, 368 students took 636 AP exams in 15 course areas. 81% of exams were passed, with an average grade of 3.45. In 2008, 1093 students took 2028 AP exams in 27 course areas. 54% of exams were passed, with an average grade of 2.72. At L&C, the pass rate in 2007-08 for Calculus AB was 24%. In Calculus BC, it was 59%. At North Central, the pass rate in 2007-08 for Calculus AB was 19%.
(Copies of each complete document provided to committee.)
A Review of Four High-School Mathematics Programs (Holt; Discovering Algebra; Core-Plus; Glencoe McGraw-Hill) March 2009
Guershon Harel, University of California, San Diego
“As can be seen in the chart below, none of the programs was found mathematically sound on the first two criteria. The (checkmark) in Holt on these criteria in geometry is better characterized as the least mathematically unsound.”
http://www.math.jhu.edu/~wsw/ED/harelfinal.pdf
A Study of Core-Plus Students Attending Michigan State University (2006)
Richard O. Hill and Thomas H. Parker
“As the implementation progressed, from 1996 to 1999, Core-Plus students placed into, and enrolled in, increasingly lower level courses; this downward trend is statistically robust (p < .0005). The percentages of students who (eventually) passed a technical calculus course show a statistically significant (p < .005) decline averaging 27 percent a year; this trend is accompanied by an obvious and statistically significant increase in percentages of students who placed into low-level and remedial algebra courses. The grades the Core-Plus students earned in their university mathematics courses are also below average, except for a small group of top students.” http://www.mth.msu.edu/~hill/HillParker5.pdf
“Brain-Based” Learning: More Fiction than Fact (2006)
Daniel T. Willingham, professor of cognitive psychology, University of Virginia
“… I hope educators will approach claims that instructional techniques and strategies are ‘proven’ because they are based on neuroscience with a healthy dose of skepticism. Cognitive and educational studies are the best sources for educators looking to improve their students’ cognitive and educational outcomes.”
http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/american_educator/issues/fall2006/cogsci.htm
Critical Thinking: Why is it So Hard to Teach? (2007)
Daniel T. Willingham, professor of cognitive psychology, University of Virginia
“As the main article explains, the ability to think critically depends on having adequate content knowledge; you can’t think critically about topics you know little about or solve problems that you don’t know well enough to recognize and execute the type of solutions they call for.”
http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/american_educator/issues/summer07/Crit_Thinking.pdf
Direct Instruction Mathematics: A Longitudinal Evaluation of Low-Income Elementary School Students (1984)
Russell Gersten, University of Oregon; Doug Carnine, University of Oregon
“…low-income primary-grade students who received the full 3- or 4-year Direct Instruction mathematics program tended to perform significantly better in all mathematic subtests of the Metropolitan Achievement Test than students who received other approaches, whether experimental or traditional. Direct Instruction Follow Through students achieved at a level much higher than is typical for students with similar demographic characteristics…”
The Elementary School Journal, Vol. 84, No. 4. (Mar., 1984), pp. 395-407.
Direct Instruction Mathematics Programs: An Overview and Research Summary (2004)
Angela M. Przychodzin, et al., Eastern Washington University
“In all, 12 studies published since 1990 were found using DI math programs. The majority (11 out of 12) of these found DI math programs to be effective in improving math skills in a variety of settings with a variety of students.”
Journal of Direct Instruction, v4 n1 p53-84 Win 2004
District 81’s Main and Supplementary Mathematics Materials (April 2009)
These pages represent current (as of April 2009) math curricula used in Spokane Public Schools, along with approved supplementary math materials. This document is 11 pages long.
Don’t Forget Curriculum (October 2009)
Grover “Russ” Whitehurst, Governance Studies, Brown Center Letters on Education, Brookings
“Anyone interested in, ‘doing what works for the kids,’ should pay attention to this table. …Curriculum effects are large compared to most popular policy levers.”
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/papers/2009/1014_curriculum_whitehurst/1014_curriculum_whitehurst.pdf
Educating the Evolved Mind: Conceptual Foundations for an Evolutionary Educational Psychology (2007) (Draft)
Geary, D. C. (2007). In J. S. Carlson & J. R. Levin (Eds.), Educating the evolved mind (pp. 1-99, Vol. 2, Psychological perspectives on contemporary educational issues).
“(Schools) are thus often used for purposes that have more to do with the best interests of those attempting to influence this socialization than the best educational interests of children. In fact, the history of education in the United States might be viewed as being more strongly driven by ideology and untested assumptions about children’s learning than by concerns about the efficacy of schooling vis-à-vis the long-term social and employment interests of children …. These ideological debates and the attendant opportunity costs to children’s educational outcomes and later employment opportunities will continue well into the twenty-first century, if current attempts to move the field of education to a more solid scientific footing are not successful ….” (Portions provided to committee, with permission.)
High School Mathematics Curriculum Study, March 2009
Prepared by Linda Plattner, Strategic Teaching
“…none of the reviewed programs were completely satisfactory. Holt was the strongest of the four, meaning the mathematics is not compromised in any of the three topics examined. Discovering was the weakest with all three areas considered inadequate. … The good news is that there are other programs that match well to Washington’s standards.”
http://www.sbe.wa.gov/documents/hscurriculumstudybyplat.pdf
How Educational Theories Can Use Neuroscientific Data (2007)
Daniel T. Willingham, Department of Psychology, University of Virginia; and John W. Lloyd, Curry School of Education, University of Virginia
“…most (scholarly treatments of neuroscience in education … argue that neuroscience has been and will continue to be helpful to education …— but they argue that data from neuroscience must be funneled through a behavioral level of analysis … or that neuroscience should be part of a broader approach to research in education, not the sole savior…”
http://www.danielwillingham.com/WillinghamLloyd2007.pdf
Independent Study of Washington State - K-8 Curriculum Review, November 2008
Prepared by Linda Plattner, Strategic Teaching
“ST reviewed Bridges in Mathematics, Investigations, Math Connects, and Math Expressions for elementary school. Holt Mathematics, Math Connects, Math Thematics, and Prentice Hall Mathematics were reviewed at the middle school level. These are OSPI’s highest-scoring programs. Other programs, such as the Connected Math Project that is widely used in Washington schools, were not reviewed because they did not meet OSPI’s minimum threshold for content.”
http://www.sbe.wa.gov/documents/2008-11-5curriculumreview.pdf
K-12 Calculator Usage and College Grades (2004)
W. Stephen Wilson, and Daniel Q. Naiman, , Johns Hopkins University
Educational Studies in Mathematics, 56:119-122, 2004.
“We find that students in the big mathematics service courses at the Johns Hopkins University who were encouraged to use calculators in K-12 have somewhat lower grades than those who weren’t.”
http://www.math.jhu.edu/~wsw/ED/pubver.pdf
Outcomes Analysis for Core Plus Students At Andover High School: One Year Later
R. James Milgram, Department of Mathematics, Stanford University
“…Andover High School scores are considerably above the state and national means in keeping with Andover’s position as one of the top high schools in the country. However, as was indicated above, both English and reading got stronger against these measures by about 6 percentile points. By comparison, in the final two years of the data, when the effects of the Core Plus mathematics program kicked in, the mathematics scores dropped against these measures by six percentile points.”
http://www.math.wayne.edu/~greg/milgram.htm
Performance Indicators in Math: Implications for Brief Experimental Analysis of Academic Performance (February 2009)
Amanda M. VanDerHeyden, Education Research and Consulting, Inc, Fairhope, AL;
Matthew K. Burns, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN
J Behav Educ (2009) 18:71–91
“Specifically, children who did not master early skills, failed to reach the mastery criterion following intervention for future related skills at much higher rates and earned lower scores on all remaining intervention skills relative to peers who attained the mastery criterion early in the sequence of tasks. … The correlation between fluent computation and faster subsequent learning of related skills is indeed promising, but future studies must examine the degree to which fluent sub-skill computation causes faster learning on more complex related problems. Contemporary research in mathematics seems to indicate a need for explicit teaching of procedural rules to solve both computation and applied problems as well as specific training to apply or generalize that knowledge over time and across varying stimuli (Fuchs and Fuchs 2001; Fuchs et al. 2003; Kameenui and Griffin 1989).
Practice Makes Perfect--But Only If You Practice Beyond the Point of Perfection (2004)
Daniel T. Willingham, cognitive psychology and neuroscience at the University of Virginia
“That students would benefit from practice might be deemed unsurprising. … The unexpected finding from cognitive science is that practice does not make perfect. Practice until you are perfect and you will be perfect only briefly. What’s necessary is sustained practice. By sustained practice I mean regular, ongoing review or use of the target material (e.g., regularly using new calculating skills to solve increasingly more complex math problems, reflecting on recently-learned historical material as one studies a subsequent history unit, taking regular quizzes or tests that draw on material learned earlier in the year). This kind of practice past the point of mastery is necessary to meet any of these three important goals of instruction: acquiring facts and knowledge, learning skills, or becoming an expert.”
http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/american_educator/spring2004/cogsci.html
Reflections of Evolution and Culture in Children’s Cognition: Implications for Mathematical Development and Instruction (1995)
David C. Geary, University of Missouri at Columbia
American Psychologist, Vol. 50, No. 1, 24-37, 1995
“The basic assumptions that guide constructivist-based instruction appear to be well suited for the acquisition of biologically primary mathematical abilities, such as number and counting. However, constructivist philosophers and researchers fail to distinguish between biologically primary and biologically secondary mathematical abilities and, as a result, treat all of mathematics as if it were a biologically primary domain. That is, given an appropriate social context and materials, children will be motivated and able to construct mathematical knowledge for themselves in all areas. The adoption of these assumptions and the associated instructional techniques appear to reflect wider cultural values and only weakly follow empirical and theoretical work in contemporary developmental and cognitive psychology, much less a consideration of evolutionary issues.”
Reform vs. Traditional Math Curricula: Preliminary report on a survey of the graduating classes of 1997 of Andover High School and Lahser High School, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, concerning their high school math programs and how well these programs prepared them for college math (1998), and update (1999)
Gregory F. Bachelis, Ph.D., Professor of Mathematics, Wayne State University, Detroit
“The other matter I would like to comment on is the performance of Core-Plus graduates on the placement tests at UMAA, MSU, as well as other colleges. A lot of them complained that they did not do well because of their lack of knowledge of basic algebra, and some said they did not do well even in the courses they were placed into. Now it is all well and good to say that people are just having a bad day when they do poorly on a placement test, but as someone who has taught remedial algebra for more years than I care to remember, let me assure you that there is a big difference between learning basic algebra and then forgetting most or all of it, and never having learned it at all. Core-Plus appears to have created a new category of students who land in remedial math courses - courses that were not designed with such students in mind.”
http://www.math.wayne.edu/~greg/original.htm
http://www.math.wayne.edu/~greg/update.htm
“Report Cards” for middle and high schools in Spokane Public Schools (2009)
http://reportcard.ospi.k12.wa.us/summary.aspx?year=2008-09
Regarding WASL cut scores:
a) Information on drop in raw cut scores for the WASL in 2004, 2005
“A decision was made to revisit the standards for Grades 4, 7, and 10 in mathematics, reading, and writing. The standards were revisited in 2004, and used the 2003 assessment. The revised cut scores were approved by the A+ commission and were implemented in 2004 for grades 4 and 7 and after legislative review in 2005 for grade 10.”
(Copy of email from the state, and cut score information provided to committee.)
b) “Improvement on WASL carries asterisk” (2004)
“The official numbers, released yesterday, show strong gains, especially in seventh grade, which were larger than ever. The percentage of seventh-graders who passed reading was 60.4, up 12.5 percentage points from last year, and 46.3 percent in math, up 9.5 points.
"When you see that kind of academic gain, you have to celebrate it," state schools Superintendent Terry Bergeson said as she announced the scores. She told the audience to thank teachers "with a hug, and thank them with a pay raise." But much of that increase in WASL scores can be attributed to the decision this year to lower some of the test's passing scores for the seventh- and fourth-grade tests. Without those changes, the seventh-grade gain instead would have been much smaller: 3.6 percentage points in reading, and 1.8 in math.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/education/2002023481_wasl02m.html
c) “Bridging Differences,” commentary by Diane Ravitch, author of Left Back: A Century of Failed School Reforms
“When states play games with cut scores and conversions from raw scores to scale scores, testing becomes a mighty scam. … we are lying to our children when we give them a false picture of their progress. When district officials know that the scores are manipulated, yet report their "gains" with a straight face, they become complicit in these lies. When public officials boast about score gains knowing that the scores are the result of game-playing, they too are complicit.”
http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/Bridging-Differences/2009/09/the_secret_of_success_and_high.html?qs=secret+of+success+and+high+test+scores#
Washington State High School Math Text Review (March 2009)
W. Stephen Wilson, Johns Hopkins University
“Geometry is important, so the unacceptable nature of geometry in Discovering and Core Plus makes these programs unacceptable. The flaws in these geometry programs are such that they could not easily be compensated for by a teacher, even with the help of supplementation.”
http://www.math.jhu.edu/~wsw/ED/wahighschoolwsw.pdf
Washington State Mathematics Standards Review and Recommendations (2007)
Linda Plattner, Strategic Teaching
“Simply put, Washington is not focused enough on the important fundamental content topics in mathematics. This is shown in the early grades in which Washington standards do not ensure that students learn the critical algorithms of arithmetic and continues throughout the standards until it ends in secondary school with minimal expectations that are missing most of the algebra, geometry, and trigonometry found in other places.”
http://www.strategicteaching.com/review_wa_standards_8-30-07.pdf
What Is Developmentally Appropriate Practice? (Summer 2008)
Daniel T. Willingham, cognitive psychology and neuroscience at the University of Virginia
“Unfortunately, Piaget’s theory is not right. He is credited with brilliant insights and many of his observations hold true—for example, kindergartners do have some egocentrism and 9-year-olds do have some trouble with highly abstract concepts. Nonetheless, recent research indicates that development does not proceed in stages after all.”
http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/american_educator/issues/summer08/willingham.pdf
What Works Clearinghouse – Investigations in Number, Data, and Space (2009)
“No studies of Investigations in Number, Data, and Space® that fall within the scope of the Elementary School Math review protocol meet What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) evidence standards. The lack of studies meeting WWC evidence standards means that, at this time, the WWC is unable to draw any conclusions based on research about the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of Investigations in Number, Data, and Space®."
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/wwc_investigations_022409.pdf
What Works Clearinghouse – Scott Foresman-Addison Wesley Elementary Mathematics (2006)
“Scott Foresman–Addison Wesley Elementary Mathematics was found to have no discernible effects on students’ math achievement. Improvement index Average: –2 percentile points; Range: –7 to +3 percentile points”
http://www2.ednet10.net/SpecialEducation/documents/WWCScottForesmanWesley.pdf
What Works Clearinghouse – Connected Mathematics Project (2007)
“The CMP curriculum was found to have mixed effects on math achievement. Rating of effectiveness. Improvement Average: –2 percentile points; Range: –12 to +11 percentile points”
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/WWC_CMP_040907.pdf
Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching (2006)
Paul A. Kirschner, Educational Technology Expertise Center, Open University of the Netherlands, Research Centre Learning in Interaction, Utrecht University, The Netherlands; John Sweller, School of Education, University of New South Wales; Richard E. Clark, Rossier School of Education, University of Southern California
“Although unguided or minimally guided instructional approaches are very popular and intuitively appealing, the point is made that these approaches ignore both the structures that constitute human cognitive architecture and evidence from empirical studies over the past half-century that consistently indicate that minimally guided instruction is less effective and less efficient than instructional approaches that place a strong emphasis on guidance of the student learning process.”
Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86, 2006
Books:
Angry Parents: Failing Schools: What’s Wrong with the Public Schools and What You Can Do About It (2000)
Elaine K. McEwan
Conspiracy of Ignorance: The Failure of American Public Schools (1999)
Martin L. Gross
Crazy Like a Fox: One Principal’s Triumph in the Inner City (2009)
Ben Chavis, former principal of American Indian Charter School, California
The Mad, Mad World of Textbook Adoption (2004)
The Thomas B. Fordham Institute
Monographs: Implementation and Child Effects of Teaching Practices in Follow Through Classrooms (1975)
Jane Stallings, Stanford Research Institute
Out-come Based Education: Understanding the Truth About Education Reform (1994)
Ron Sunseri
The Schools We Need and Why We Don’t Have Them (1999)
E.D. Hirsch, Jr.
Visible Learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement (2008)
John Hattie
What’s At Stake in the K-12 Standards Wars
Edited by Sandra Stotsky
Why Don't Students Like School?: A Cognitive Scientist Answers Questions About How the Mind Works and What It Means for the Classroom (2009)
Daniel T. Willingham, associate professor, University of Virginia
Reports:
National Mathematics Advisory Panel Final Report (2008)
“During most of the 20th century, the United States possessed peerless mathematical prowess—not just as measured by the depth and number of the mathematical specialists who practiced here but also by the scale and quality of its engineering, science, and financial leadership, and even by the extent of mathematical education in its broad population…
“This Panel, diverse in experience, expertise, and philosophy, agrees broadly that the (current) delivery system in mathematics education—the system that translates mathematical knowledge into value and ability for the next generation—is broken and must be fixed.”
http://www.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/mathpanel/report/final-report.pdf
(7 complete copies provided to committee by Dr. Sandra Stotsky.)
Chapter 2: Report of the Subcommittee on Standards of Evidence
Valerie F. Reyna, Chair; Camilla Persson Benbow; A. Wade Boykin; Grover J. “Russ” Whitehurst, Ex Officio; Tyrrell Flawn
“The Panel’s systematic reviews have yielded hundreds of studies on important topics,
but only a small proportion of those studies have met methodological standards. … Many studies rely on self-report, introspection about what has been learned or about learning processes, and
open-ended interviewing techniques, despite well-known limitations of such methods …. ”
http://www.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/mathpanel/report/standards-of-evidence.pdf
Chapter 3: Report of the Task Group on Conceptual Knowledge and Skills
Francis “Skip” Fennell, Chair; Larry R. Faulkner; Liping Ma; Wilfried Schmid; Sandra Stotsky; Hung-Hsi Wu; Tyrrell Flawn
“Proficiency with whole numbers, fractions, and particular aspects of geometry and measurement are the Critical Foundation of Algebra. Emphasis on these essential concepts and skills must be provided at the elementary- and middle-grade levels. The coherence and sequential nature of mathematics dictate the foundational skills that are necessary for the learning of algebra. By the nature of algebra, the most important foundational skill is proficiency with fractions (including decimals, percent, and negative fractions). The teaching of fractions must be acknowledged as critically important and improved before an increase in student achievement in Algebra can be expected."
http://www.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/mathpanel/report/conceptual-knowledge.pdf
(Partial copies provided –
· Conclusions and Section 2. Differences in Curriculum Approaches Between TIMSS Top-Performing Countries and the United States.)
Chapter 4: Report of the Task Group on Learning Processes
David C. Geary, Chair; A. Wade Boykin; Susan Embretson; Valerie Reyna; Robert Siegler; Daniel B. Berch, Ex Officio; Jennifer Graban
“Anxiety is an emotional reaction that is related to low math achievement, failure to enroll in advanced mathematics courses, and poor scores on standardized tests of math achievement. Math anxiety creates a focus of limited working memory on managing anxiety reaction rather than on solving the math problem, but it can be reduced by therapeutic interventions. … The mastery of whole number arithmetic is a critical step in children’s mathematical education. The road to mastery involves learning arithmetic facts, algorithms, and concepts. The quick and efficient solving of simple arithmetic problems is achieved when children retrieve answers from long-term memory or retrieve related information that allows them to quickly reconstruct the answer. Retention of these facts requires repeated practice.”
http://www.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/mathpanel/report/learning-processes.pdf
(Partial copy provided –
Conclusions and Section F. Brain Sciences and Mathematics Learning.)
Chapter 6: Report of the Task Group on Instructional Practices
Russell Gersten, Co-Chair; Joan Ferrini-Mundy, Ex Officio, Co-Chair; Camilla Benbow; Douglas H. Clements; Tom Loveless; Vern Williams; Irma Arispe, Ex Officio; Marian Banfield
“The studies presented a mixed and inconclusive picture of the relative impact of these two forms of instruction. High-quality research does not support the contention that instruction should be either entirely “child centered” or “teacher directed.” Research indicates that some forms of particular instructional practices can have a positive impact under specified conditions. All-encompassing recommendations that instruction should be entirely “child centered” or “teacher directed” are not supported by research.”
http://www.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/mathpanel/report/instructional-practices.pdf
(Partial copy provided to committee –
· Conclusions and Section II. Teacher-Directed and Student-Centered Instruction in Mathematics)
Chapter 7: Report of the Subcommittee on Instructional Materials
Robert S. Siegler, Chair; Bert Fristedt; Vern Williams; Irma Arispe; Daniel B. Berch; Marian Banfield
“When mathematicians have reviewed already published middle and high school textbooks, however, they have identified a nontrivial number of errors, and a large number of ambiguous and confusing statements and problems. Many of these errors and ambiguities arise on word problems that are intended to elicit use of the mathematical concepts and procedures in real-world contexts. The Subcommittee recommends that publishers obtain reviews from mathematicians prior to publication, so that these errors and ambiguities can be identified and corrected. …Having mathematicians also read textbooks in the formative stages may increase the coherence of the presentation of mathematics between earlier and later grades.”
http://www.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/mathpanel/report/instructional-materials.pdf
Chapter 9: Subcommittee on the National Survey of Algebra I Teachers
Tom Loveless, Chair; Francis “Skip” Fennell; Vern Williams; Deborah Loewenberg Ball; Marian Banfield, U.S. Department of Education Staff
“The most frequent type of suggestion among the 578 respondents was a greater focus in primary education placed on mastery of basic mathematical concepts and skills… A substantial number of teachers considered mixed-ability groupings to be a “moderate” (28%) or “serious” (23%) problem… The responses indicate that about 28% of the algebra teachers felt family participation is a serious problem and another 32% believed lack of family participation is a moderate problem…”
http://www.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/mathpanel/report/nsat.pdf
Reports:
The Condition of College Readiness 2009 – ACT
“About 67% of all ACT-tested high school graduates met the English College Readiness Benchmark in 2009. Just under 1 in 4 (23%) met all four College Readiness Benchmarks.
In 2009, 53% of graduates met the Reading Benchmark, while 42% met the Mathematics
Benchmark. Over 1 in 4 (28%) met the College Readiness Benchmark in Science.”
http://www.act.org/research/policymakers/pdf/TheConditionofCollegeReadiness.pdf
Comparative Indicators of Education in the United States and other G-8 Countries: 2009
“For example, the advanced benchmark (the highest TIMSS benchmark) was reached by 26 percent of Japan’s eighth-graders in mathematics … In the United States, 6 percent of eighth-graders reached the advanced benchmark …
“In Japan, 61 percent of eighth-graders reached the high benchmark in mathematics… In the United States, 31 percent of eighth-graders reached the high benchmark...”
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2009/2009039.pdf
Mathematics 2009 - National Assessment of Educational Progress at Grades 4 and 8
National Center for Education Statistics (2009). The Nation’s Report Card: Mathematics 2009 (NCES 2010–451). Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, D.C.
“Gains in students’ average mathematics scores seen in earlier years did not continue from 2007 to 2009 at grade 4 but did continue at grade 8 … While still higher than the scores in the six assessment years from 1990 to 2005, the overall average score for fourth-graders in 2009 was unchanged from the score in 2007. The upward trend seen in earlier assessments for eighth-graders continued with a 2-point increase from 2007 to 2009.”
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/main2009/2010451.pdf
Executive summary of 2009 NAEP Mathematics Results (2009)
Nation's Report Card: America's High School Graduates: Results From The 2005 NAEP High School Transcript Study
“How can increasing numbers of students be taking more credits and more rigorous curricula without increased performance on the Nation’s Report Card?”
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/studies/2007467.pdf
Reports:
Project Follow Through: In-depth and Beyond (1996)
Gary Adams, Educational Achievement Systems, Seattle
“Only the Direct Instruction model had positive scores on all three types of outcomes (Basic Skills, Cognitive, and Affective). Overall, the Direct Instruction model was highest on all three types of measures. … The Affective Models had the worst affective ranks (6.7 compared to 2.7 for the Basic Skills models).
http://www.uoregon.edu/~adiep/ft/adams.htm
Sponsor Findings From Project Follow Through
Wesley C. Becker and Siegfried Engelmann, University of Oregon
“The closest rival to the Direct Instruction Model in overall effects was another behaviorally-based program, the University of Kansas Behavior Analysis Model. Child-centered, cognitively focused, and open classroom approaches tended to perform poorly on all measures of academic progress.”
http://www.uoregon.edu/~adiep/ft/becker.htm
Overview: The Story Behind Project Follow Through
Bonnie Grossen, Editor
“The only model that brought children close to the 50th percentile in all subject areas was the Direct Instruction model. …The most popular models were not only unable to demonstrate many positive effects; most of them produced a large number of negative effects. …
“Yet 10 short years later, the models that achieved the worst results, even negative results, are the ones that are, in fact, becoming legislated policy in many states, under new names. … Every educator in the country should know that in the history of education, no educational model has ever been documented to achieve such positive results with such consistency across so many variable sites as Direct Instruction. It never happened before FT, and it hasn't happened since. … Not enough people know this.”
http://www.uoregon.edu/~adiep/ft/grossen.htm
A Constructive Look at Follow Through Results (1981)
Carl Bereiter, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, and Midian Kurland, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
“Thus we have, if we wish it, a battle of the philosophies, with the child-centered philosophy coming out the loser on measured achievement, as it has in a number of other experiments … Consistently it is the more direct methods, involving clear specifications of objectives, clear explanations, clear corrections of wrong responses, and a great deal of ‘time on task,’ that are associated with superior achievement test performance. The effects tend to be strongest with disadvantaged children.”
http://www.uoregon.edu/~adiep/ft/bereiter.htm
Follow Through: Why Didn't We?
Cathy L. Watkins, California State University, Stanislaus
“The Joint Dissemination Review Panel and the National Diffusion Network were created to validate and disseminate effective educational programs. In 1977, Follow Through sponsors submitted programs to the JDRP. ‘Effectiveness’ was, however, broadly interpreted. For example, according the JDRP, the positive impact of a program need not be directly related to academic achievement. In addition, a program could be judged effective if it had a positive impact on individuals other than students. As a result, programs that had failed to improve academic achievement in Follow Through were rated as ‘exemplary and effective.’ And, once a program was validated, it was packaged and disseminated to schools through the National Diffusion Network…. The JDRP apparently felt that to be "fair" it had to represent the multiplicity of methods in education. Not only did this practice make it virtually impossible for school districts to distinguish between effective and ineffective programs, it defeated the very purpose for which the JDRP and NDN were established.”
http://www.uoregon.edu/~adiep/ft/watkins.htm
Honest follow-through needed on this project (1998)
By Marian Kester Coombs, special to The Washington Times
“After the Harvard article appeared, all the test models were recommended equally for dissemination to the school districts, and by 1982, the least-effective models were receiving higher levels of funding than the most effective ones, in an apparent effort to equalize results. …
“The president of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Gail Burrill, was asked about Project Follow Through in a recent interview and responded, "I have never heard of it" … Mr. Adams shakes his head. "The most puzzling thing is how the very models like whole language and discovery learning that the data showed to be ineffective and even harmful are still being pushed. Parents should be asking, 'Where is the proof these programs work?'”
http://www.mathematicallycorrect.com/honestft.htm
Our Failure To Follow Through (1994)
Billy Tashman, New York, Newsday
“In fact, the federal oversight panel for Follow Through cut the Direct Instruction program even as it continued other models that were spectacular flops. Eschewing basic skills, the failed programs tried to teach kids how to learn on their own, or tried to raise students' self-esteem (both categories, by the way, in which Direct Instruction students excelled).”
http://www.uoregon.edu/~adiep/ft/tashman.htm
Documents, Letters, Commentary
An Open Letter to United States Secretary of Education Richard Riley (1999)
Dr. David Klein, et al.
“It is not likely that the mainstream views of practicing mathematicians and scientists were shared by those who designed the criteria for selection of "exemplary" and "promising" mathematics curricula. … In an article entitled, "It's Time To Abandon Computational Algorithms," published February 9, 1994, in Education Week on the Web, (Steven Leinwand) wrote: ‘It's time to recognize that, for many students, real mathematical power, on the one hand, and facility with multidigit, pencil-and-paper computational algorithms, on the other, are mutually exclusive. In fact, it's time to acknowledge that continuing to teach these skills to our students is not only unnecessary, but counterproductive and downright dangerous.’
“… Even before the endorsements by the Department of Education were announced, mathematicians and scientists from leading universities had already expressed opposition to several of the programs listed above and had pointed out serious mathematical shortcomings in them.”
http://www.mathematicallycorrect.com/riley.htm
Email – “Bizarre Subtraction Algorithm” (2009)
“What's ironic is that as (the student) pounds through this procedure, it's clear that he's going by rote. So here's a case where (Everyday Math) utterly backfired, and left a student with an inefficient rote procedure in his personal quivver.”
Email from Dr. David C. Geary, Curators’ Professor, Thomas Jefferson Professor, Department of Psychological Sciences, University of Missouri (2009)
“The National Mathematics Advisory Panel explicitly reviewed the brain imaging literature on math processing as related to instructional practices and concluded that any instructional claims based on brain sciences is premature.”
Email series from three members of Where’s the Math? Advocacy Group (2009)
“…the reason for so much failure in Algebra I is because many students simply lack most of the necessary skills in order to succeed. When you tell administrators this they say “quit giving me excuses.” It’s kind of like being asked to teach kids to play water polo when they don’t know how to swim. When your water polo team does lousy the administration asks you why these kids are so bad..…. You answer because they don’t know how to swim… Even worse, they won’t let you teach them how to swim…..In fact they are claiming that you can just teach them to swim while they are playing the game….. That is exactly what is happening in math education and the result is that many kids are figuratively “drowning” in this system. .. Colleges give asset tests to determine what classes a freshman may take. Students who can’t qualify are not allowed to take higher courses…. Why? Because statistics show that these unqualified students will fail if allowed to go on. Imagine if college professors were required to take all students regardless of how low they were and then they were blamed when the failure rate went through the roof….. Sometimes you have to ask yourself why any intelligent person would put up with this garbage….."
How to Improve National Math Scores - New York Times – (2009)
Bruce Fuller, professor of education and public policy; Lance T. Izumi, Pacific Research Institute; Holly Tsakiris Horrigan, parent; Richard Bisk, math professor; Barry Garelick, U.S. Coalition for World Class Math
“To give students a firm foundation in math, we must start in the elementary grades by providing three things: a substantial improvement in elementary teachers’ knowledge of mathematics; a more focused curriculum that emphasize core concepts and skills; and more challenging textbooks that teach for mastery and not just exposure.”
http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/15/how-to-improve-national-math-scores/
Letter from Dr. Shannon Overbay, associate mathematics professor, Gonzaga University (not dated)
“At Gonzaga, I have continued to see students who have come from various reform programs struggle with basic skills. My students often complain that they never learned their times tables and say that they should not have been allowed to use calculators in grade school. They do see the damage that has been done. Many programs, such as Investigations (TERC) do not even cover topics such as long division and routine computations with fractions. By the time these students come to college, they are unable to go into technical majors and have to struggle to pass even elementary math classes designed for non-technical majors. By the time the students hit college, the problems and gaps cannot easily be fixed with one or two “refresher” courses. There are often gaps and holes in their mathematics background that would require years of remediation to fix. For most students, that is not a reasonable option. So, instead, they opt for non-technical majors. We are faced with a 20% decline nationally in the number of engineering majors in recent years. It is devastating.”
Letter from Martha McLaren, retired Seattle Public Schools teacher (2009)
“I began to doubt reform math because of what I had seen in my own classroom, and what I later saw throughout the school district. I worked with confused, demoralized students who were frantically grabbing calculators for the simplest computations. Roughly half of middle schoolers and high schoolers did not understand fractions, decimals, or percents, much less negative numbers or pre-algebra skills. I've spoken with numerous overworked and demoralized teachers who were at their wits end trying to help their students become competent in basic math. These teachers almost never spoke out against reform texts because school district administrators gave them no choice but to support reform math -- teachers' jobs were on the line.”
Short Response to Tunis’ Letter to the Editor on Technology in College (2005)
W. Stephen Wilson, Johns Hopkins University
“…I have not yet encountered a mathematics concept that required technology to either teach it or assess it. The concepts and skills we teach are so basic and fundamental that technology is not needed to either elucidate or enhance them….Consequently, all of Tunis’s questions about how to best insert technology into these introductory courses in college are really a non-issue.”
http://www.math.jhu.edu/~wsw/ED/EDUCTunis.pdf
Teaching too-hard math concepts does students no favors (2009)
Joseph Ganem, physics professor, Loyola University, Maryland
“We are in the midst of a paradox in math education. As more states strive to improve math curricula and raise standardized test scores, more students show up to college unprepared for college-level math. In Maryland, 49 percent of high school graduates take noncredit remedial math courses in college, before they can take math courses for credit. In many cases, incoming college students cannot do basic arithmetic, even after passing all high school math tests. Recently, it was reported that student math achievement actually grew faster in the years before the No Child Left Behind law.”
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.math02nov02,0,1068320.story
What Do College Students Know? By this professor’s calculations, math skills have plummeted (2008)
W. Stephen Wilson, Johns Hopkins University
“I am inclined to conclude that the 2006 JHU students are not as well prepared as the corresponding group was in 1989, despite there being significantly more competition to get into JHU today than ever before. This phenomenon is probably shared with many other universities. The year 1989 is, in mathematics education, indelibly tied to the publication by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics of the report "Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics," which downplayed pencil-and-paper computations and strongly suggested that calculators play an important role in K-12 mathematics education. ...
“Since 1994, the College Board has allowed the use of calculators on the mathematics SAT. … I believe it is precisely this gained “advantage” that causes the SATM to fail universities in the admissions process. My findings spread like wildfire through the mathematics community. … The surprise was the general indifference that administrators at JHU had toward the study. This kind of drop in SAT scores would be a crisis, but the news that high-performing students were less prepared for college math than students 17 years earlier didn’t seem to bother anyone, at least not enough to contemplate taking action.”
http://www.math.jhu.edu/~wsw/ED/ednext_20084_88.pdf
What the Data Really Show: Direct Instruction Really Works! (2009)
Dr. Jeff Lindsay
“Direct Instruction is the dirty little secret of the educational establishment. This method, rich in structure and drilling and content, is the opposite of the favored methods of today's high-paid education gurus, and contradicts the popular theories that are taught to new teachers in our universities. Direct Instruction should be no secret at all, for it has been proven in the largest educational study ever (discussed below) and continues to bring remarkable success at low cost when it is implemented.”
http://www.jefflindsay.com/EducData.shtml
Monday, November 23, 2009
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Public forums are public's chance to be heard
Spokane Public Schools is undergoing a high school mathematics curriculum adoption process. District administrators have been intentional about inviting public comment before formal decisions are made. Two public forums are scheduled:
Nov. 10, North Central High School, 6-7 pm
Nov. 12, Lewis and Clark High School, 6-7 pm
Please consider participating in these meetings - either by offering comment yourself or by notifying your students about these meetings. It could be helpful to the process, for example, if college students and graduates were to reflect back on their high school mathematics classes. Did they get the math they needed for a successful college experience? Did they require remediation in mathematics during K-12 or after they graduated? These reflections would help inform the selection process.
Parents can offer their thoughts on what they want from a high school mathematics curriculum, and also how they prefer this material be presented and taught. They're welcome to bring their middle school and high school students. No doubt the students have experiences and preferences they would like to share with the committee.
Additionally, business owners and tradespeople can discuss the skills they require from students who complete the school district's mathematics curriculum.
Nov. 10 and Nov. 12 are your opportunities to be heard. Because each forum is just one hour long, it will be helpful to bring your comments in writing, just in case there isn't enough time for everyone. If you cannot make it to the meeting, please feel free to submit any comments in writing to the school district or to members of the school board.
I am a committee member, however this particular notice was not written on behalf of the committee.
Please come to these forums if you can. Tell them what you want. And thank you very much for whatever you can do to help inform the selection process.
Nov. 10, North Central High School, 6-7 pm
Nov. 12, Lewis and Clark High School, 6-7 pm
Please consider participating in these meetings - either by offering comment yourself or by notifying your students about these meetings. It could be helpful to the process, for example, if college students and graduates were to reflect back on their high school mathematics classes. Did they get the math they needed for a successful college experience? Did they require remediation in mathematics during K-12 or after they graduated? These reflections would help inform the selection process.
Parents can offer their thoughts on what they want from a high school mathematics curriculum, and also how they prefer this material be presented and taught. They're welcome to bring their middle school and high school students. No doubt the students have experiences and preferences they would like to share with the committee.
Additionally, business owners and tradespeople can discuss the skills they require from students who complete the school district's mathematics curriculum.
Nov. 10 and Nov. 12 are your opportunities to be heard. Because each forum is just one hour long, it will be helpful to bring your comments in writing, just in case there isn't enough time for everyone. If you cannot make it to the meeting, please feel free to submit any comments in writing to the school district or to members of the school board.
I am a committee member, however this particular notice was not written on behalf of the committee.
Please come to these forums if you can. Tell them what you want. And thank you very much for whatever you can do to help inform the selection process.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
To new subscribers: I'm sorry for a technical glitch
I am a very, very bad blogger. I owe many people an apology. I have been accidentally deleting subscription requests for this blog -- any that came to me with the subject message of "Subscribe." If you sent me an automatic message from the link on the right, I probably wiped you out, never knowing what was in your message.
Between Safer Child, Inc., a nonprofit I run at http://www.saferchild.org , and the Betrayed blog, I receive hundreds of SPAM emails every single day. They come with all sorts of subject messages (most not printable here), and some come with viruses and spyware attached. Because of these problems, we have had to replace our computer equipment several times, and we have lost much work over the last decade, including critical emails and one of my master's degree papers, which I had to rewrite. (The paper was better the second time around, but this would not prevent me from kicking the evil hacker in the shins.)
We are now skittish of messages that have SPAM-like subject messages, such as the subject message "Subscribe." Sadly, "Subscribe" is also the automatic subject message for subscription requests to the Betrayed blog. I didn't set it up that way - it's just how it is.
If you asked to subscribe and did not hear from me, this is probably what happened to you. Please send another request to wlroge@comcast.net, or via the "Subscribe to Betrayed" link off to the right. I will no longer automatically delete messages with a subject message of "Subscribe."
My daughter is delighted to see that I have finally arrived in the 21st century, technology-wise.
Thanks very much for your patience.
Laurie Rogers
Between Safer Child, Inc., a nonprofit I run at http://www.saferchild.org , and the Betrayed blog, I receive hundreds of SPAM emails every single day. They come with all sorts of subject messages (most not printable here), and some come with viruses and spyware attached. Because of these problems, we have had to replace our computer equipment several times, and we have lost much work over the last decade, including critical emails and one of my master's degree papers, which I had to rewrite. (The paper was better the second time around, but this would not prevent me from kicking the evil hacker in the shins.)
We are now skittish of messages that have SPAM-like subject messages, such as the subject message "Subscribe." Sadly, "Subscribe" is also the automatic subject message for subscription requests to the Betrayed blog. I didn't set it up that way - it's just how it is.
If you asked to subscribe and did not hear from me, this is probably what happened to you. Please send another request to wlroge@comcast.net, or via the "Subscribe to Betrayed" link off to the right. I will no longer automatically delete messages with a subject message of "Subscribe."
My daughter is delighted to see that I have finally arrived in the 21st century, technology-wise.
Thanks very much for your patience.
Laurie Rogers
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Parents & teachers: Demand the respect you're owed
The latest catchy word in the media is “civility.” The media – our ever-vigilant protectors of American decency and morality – are all over this, pausing in their meticulously well-balanced coverage of the weighty issues facing the nation so they can write pages and pages of in-depth analysis on how various semi-celebrities and politicians have been rude.
The media could use a mirror, but perhaps these erudite mountebanks have a point. Some folks have been rude. Still, there’s a larger issue here, which I think the media are missing. (I know – it was a complete shock to me, too.)
Incivility and poor manners are symptoms of a lack of respect. The media ought to know more about that than anyone. Right on the media’s heels, however, are certain public-education administrators who also display a lack of respect for their publics.
Was that a cheap shot? It hasn’t been cheap for me. I’m a reasonably well-educated, polite, friendly, frequently funny person who is slightly more intelligent than a doorknob. I care about the children – the one living in my house and those in the school down the street, throughout the district, and all across the nation. I want to help them learn so they’ll grow up, achieve great things and support me in my dotage with whatever pittance the government hasn’t already spent on itself. And so, with all the best intentions, I do my research, politely ask questions of administrators, make helpful suggestions, ask for something better than what we have now (and “better” isn’t hard to find), bring solid research to the table, volunteer my help, and wait patiently to be heard. I follow the rules, don’t speak out of turn, and almost never stand up and tell certain people how completely useless they appear to be.
And yet – despite my general wonderfulness, my innate brilliance and my astute wisdom – almost every official and administrator in public education treats me as though I’m an idiot, a whacko, or just invisible. What’s up with that? How did public education become inundated with so many people who are condescending, self-centered – and at times contemptuously dismissive? These people hold our children’s future – our country’s future – in their unapologetically arrogant hands. Why do we not demand more of them? Why do we not hold them accountable?
Lord knows, I have tried.
District: At the district level, most school board members don’t answer my questions. Only one in Spokane – Dr. Jeff Bierman, a physics professor – actually talks with me. Several walk past me with eyes averted, as if I’m not there. One rolls his eyes when he sees me. I haven’t been rude in their meetings – I swear – just persistent.
The school superintendent has a habit of introducing herself to me as if I haven’t spoken to the board half a dozen times, haven’t met her, haven’t asked her questions in open forums, and didn’t sit in her office last year for an hour interviewing her.
Instead of asking me if they can see the research I’ve compiled, certain district staff members tell me I have nothing to tell them about what my daughter needs for curriculum or teaching methodology. And yet, they have no scientific research to show me, no solid answers to give me, and they get testy with me on the phone. I swear to you I am the soul of patience with them.
State: Over the last few years, I’ve sent several requests for information to the Washington State Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) (our state department of education). Unless I send my requests wrapped in a formal Request for Public Information, I usually do not receive a reply, much less answers. Fortunately, the person who manages those formal requests is pleasant and professional, and she never forgets me. She’s a sunny spot in my otherwise gloomy 2 ½-year relationship with OSPI.
Governor: In July, I called the Washington State governor’s office to speak about the state’s participation in a) the national education standards being put together by the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers, and b) the federal Race to the Top initiative. I left messages for Judy Hartmann, the person the governor’s office recommended as a contact. Ms. Hartmann didn’t return my phone calls. In September, I left a third message. A few weeks later, I called again. Finally, on September 30, her assistant called to set up a phone appointment. (I’ll discuss this phone call in an upcoming article).
What took so long? I’m told that Ms. Hartmann’s been busy with the coordination of contacts for the national education standards and Race to the Top. Boy, that taxpayer money sure motivates. (Maybe that’s why these people don’t seem motivated to talk to me. They already have more of my money than I do, and they can just take more of it whenever they want it.)
Federal: I’ve contacted the U.S. Department of Education multiple times since July 11 to ask about its involvement in the national education standards. Repeatedly, my questions were refused, and I was told to contact the NGA and CCSSO.
But I already had. On July 11 I’d emailed the NGA, the CCSSO and their partner Achieve, Inc. After a second email, Achieve finally responded by directing me to the CCSSO. So far, the NGA and CCSSO haven’t acknowledged my existence.
Finally, I emailed the Department of Education with a formal Request for Public Information. I received an initial email and clarifying phone call, but no answers.
Two weeks ago, I called the DoE for the 5th time. Let’s call it nearly a dozen contacts altogether that I’ve made to the DoE, trying to get about 30 simple questions answered. I was promised a reply on Monday, Sept. 28. On Sept. 30, I received an email telling me they were still locating documents and would soon provide me with a cost estimate. Oh, joy. Clearly, “soon” is a relative term, as in - "We'll get back to you sooner than the arrival of the next millennium."
So much for transparency.
Public education is a bureaucracy. Administrators manage a lot of people and stacks of paper, and they have the same 24 hours we do. (This is one of the myriad arguments for opposing the federal takeover of public education. If administrators won’t talk to you now, just wait until you’re trying to talk to suits in Washington, DC.)
But the problem isn’t just bureaucracy. It’s also a real and persistent lack of respect – for parents, students, and teachers. By and large, administrators don’t have to answer questions, so most don’t. Or, they neatly sidestep them. They play the odds, betting you’ll give up and go away. Most of us do. There isn’t much that can be done.
Or so they think.
Parents can insist on respect for themselves and their children. They can stand up and demand answers, and they can persist until they get what they need. They can refuse to accept “No, I don’t know, It isn’t me, I didn’t do it, It isn’t important, You’re the only one who’s ever asked, Well, we’ll think about it.”
When asking questions doesn’t work, parents can vote with their feet. They can vote board members out, they can leave the system, they can tell their friends, they can write letters, contact their representatives, and make it public. When all else fails, they can file a lawsuit.
Most education administrators and board members with whom I’ve spoken don’t respect me, although some pretend to. (The few who do know who they are.) It’s been a steep learning curve, but now I know how the playing field is laid out. I’m still here, and I want to know what they’re doing.
Parents, students and teachers, I’m asking you to join me. Stand up and demand a say in the decisions these people make. Sure, we can do this civilly, but don’t let anyone’s use of that word keep you from asking questions. It isn’t uncivil to expect decision-makers to be honest and forthcoming. It isn’t uncivil to hold them accountable, or to push for the truth.
Stand up for the children. Take back their future. Take back the public education system. Stand up and fight for the respect you are owed.
Please note: The information in this post is copyrighted. The proper citation is:
Rogers, L. (October, 2009). "Parents & teachers: Demand the respect you're owed." Retrieved (date) from the Betrayed Web site: http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailing.blogspot.com/
The media could use a mirror, but perhaps these erudite mountebanks have a point. Some folks have been rude. Still, there’s a larger issue here, which I think the media are missing. (I know – it was a complete shock to me, too.)
Incivility and poor manners are symptoms of a lack of respect. The media ought to know more about that than anyone. Right on the media’s heels, however, are certain public-education administrators who also display a lack of respect for their publics.
Was that a cheap shot? It hasn’t been cheap for me. I’m a reasonably well-educated, polite, friendly, frequently funny person who is slightly more intelligent than a doorknob. I care about the children – the one living in my house and those in the school down the street, throughout the district, and all across the nation. I want to help them learn so they’ll grow up, achieve great things and support me in my dotage with whatever pittance the government hasn’t already spent on itself. And so, with all the best intentions, I do my research, politely ask questions of administrators, make helpful suggestions, ask for something better than what we have now (and “better” isn’t hard to find), bring solid research to the table, volunteer my help, and wait patiently to be heard. I follow the rules, don’t speak out of turn, and almost never stand up and tell certain people how completely useless they appear to be.
And yet – despite my general wonderfulness, my innate brilliance and my astute wisdom – almost every official and administrator in public education treats me as though I’m an idiot, a whacko, or just invisible. What’s up with that? How did public education become inundated with so many people who are condescending, self-centered – and at times contemptuously dismissive? These people hold our children’s future – our country’s future – in their unapologetically arrogant hands. Why do we not demand more of them? Why do we not hold them accountable?
Lord knows, I have tried.
District: At the district level, most school board members don’t answer my questions. Only one in Spokane – Dr. Jeff Bierman, a physics professor – actually talks with me. Several walk past me with eyes averted, as if I’m not there. One rolls his eyes when he sees me. I haven’t been rude in their meetings – I swear – just persistent.
The school superintendent has a habit of introducing herself to me as if I haven’t spoken to the board half a dozen times, haven’t met her, haven’t asked her questions in open forums, and didn’t sit in her office last year for an hour interviewing her.
Instead of asking me if they can see the research I’ve compiled, certain district staff members tell me I have nothing to tell them about what my daughter needs for curriculum or teaching methodology. And yet, they have no scientific research to show me, no solid answers to give me, and they get testy with me on the phone. I swear to you I am the soul of patience with them.
State: Over the last few years, I’ve sent several requests for information to the Washington State Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) (our state department of education). Unless I send my requests wrapped in a formal Request for Public Information, I usually do not receive a reply, much less answers. Fortunately, the person who manages those formal requests is pleasant and professional, and she never forgets me. She’s a sunny spot in my otherwise gloomy 2 ½-year relationship with OSPI.
Governor: In July, I called the Washington State governor’s office to speak about the state’s participation in a) the national education standards being put together by the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers, and b) the federal Race to the Top initiative. I left messages for Judy Hartmann, the person the governor’s office recommended as a contact. Ms. Hartmann didn’t return my phone calls. In September, I left a third message. A few weeks later, I called again. Finally, on September 30, her assistant called to set up a phone appointment. (I’ll discuss this phone call in an upcoming article).
What took so long? I’m told that Ms. Hartmann’s been busy with the coordination of contacts for the national education standards and Race to the Top. Boy, that taxpayer money sure motivates. (Maybe that’s why these people don’t seem motivated to talk to me. They already have more of my money than I do, and they can just take more of it whenever they want it.)
Federal: I’ve contacted the U.S. Department of Education multiple times since July 11 to ask about its involvement in the national education standards. Repeatedly, my questions were refused, and I was told to contact the NGA and CCSSO.
But I already had. On July 11 I’d emailed the NGA, the CCSSO and their partner Achieve, Inc. After a second email, Achieve finally responded by directing me to the CCSSO. So far, the NGA and CCSSO haven’t acknowledged my existence.
Finally, I emailed the Department of Education with a formal Request for Public Information. I received an initial email and clarifying phone call, but no answers.
Two weeks ago, I called the DoE for the 5th time. Let’s call it nearly a dozen contacts altogether that I’ve made to the DoE, trying to get about 30 simple questions answered. I was promised a reply on Monday, Sept. 28. On Sept. 30, I received an email telling me they were still locating documents and would soon provide me with a cost estimate. Oh, joy. Clearly, “soon” is a relative term, as in - "We'll get back to you sooner than the arrival of the next millennium."
So much for transparency.
Public education is a bureaucracy. Administrators manage a lot of people and stacks of paper, and they have the same 24 hours we do. (This is one of the myriad arguments for opposing the federal takeover of public education. If administrators won’t talk to you now, just wait until you’re trying to talk to suits in Washington, DC.)
But the problem isn’t just bureaucracy. It’s also a real and persistent lack of respect – for parents, students, and teachers. By and large, administrators don’t have to answer questions, so most don’t. Or, they neatly sidestep them. They play the odds, betting you’ll give up and go away. Most of us do. There isn’t much that can be done.
Or so they think.
Parents can insist on respect for themselves and their children. They can stand up and demand answers, and they can persist until they get what they need. They can refuse to accept “No, I don’t know, It isn’t me, I didn’t do it, It isn’t important, You’re the only one who’s ever asked, Well, we’ll think about it.”
When asking questions doesn’t work, parents can vote with their feet. They can vote board members out, they can leave the system, they can tell their friends, they can write letters, contact their representatives, and make it public. When all else fails, they can file a lawsuit.
Most education administrators and board members with whom I’ve spoken don’t respect me, although some pretend to. (The few who do know who they are.) It’s been a steep learning curve, but now I know how the playing field is laid out. I’m still here, and I want to know what they’re doing.
Parents, students and teachers, I’m asking you to join me. Stand up and demand a say in the decisions these people make. Sure, we can do this civilly, but don’t let anyone’s use of that word keep you from asking questions. It isn’t uncivil to expect decision-makers to be honest and forthcoming. It isn’t uncivil to hold them accountable, or to push for the truth.
Stand up for the children. Take back their future. Take back the public education system. Stand up and fight for the respect you are owed.
Please note: The information in this post is copyrighted. The proper citation is:
Rogers, L. (October, 2009). "Parents & teachers: Demand the respect you're owed." Retrieved (date) from the Betrayed Web site: http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailing.blogspot.com/
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Administrators, board members need reality check
I challenge district board members and administrators to go out into the school district and start working with the children. I’m not talking about photo ops, obsequious gift giving, and meaningless meet-and-greets of the great, unwashed masses. I’m talking about working with the children, sitting down with them to tutor them in arithmetic, talking with them in all seriousness about their education, finding out how it’s been going, what their challenges are, what they would like to see happen, and what they really need. I’m talking about regular, quality time, every month.
If school administrators were open to learning something – and not just interested in hearing what they already believe – then working with the students could be a real education, a comeuppance, and a humbling experience.
“Keep it real, dude” should be the law – or at least district policy. But it’s easier to avoid reality, to make policy from afar, to field phone calls off the record, and to hold meetings where no one has to answer questions. My goal, therefore, is to help administrators keep it real.
Hey, here comes some reality now.
I’ve spoken at length with a Spokane principal about a free tutoring program for some of his K-6 students. At the end of the last conversation, I could see I would have to take my tutoring program elsewhere. It isn’t that he can’t use the help. In his school last spring, just 63% of the 4th graders and 59% of the 6th graders passed the state standardized math tests. It isn’t that he can’t let me in the door. I’m not a whacko, drug addict or criminal. I’ve volunteered in this school district for the last six years. The reasons I took my tutoring elsewhere are these:
If school administrators were open to learning something – and not just interested in hearing what they already believe – then working with the students could be a real education, a comeuppance, and a humbling experience.
“Keep it real, dude” should be the law – or at least district policy. But it’s easier to avoid reality, to make policy from afar, to field phone calls off the record, and to hold meetings where no one has to answer questions. My goal, therefore, is to help administrators keep it real.
Hey, here comes some reality now.
I’ve spoken at length with a Spokane principal about a free tutoring program for some of his K-6 students. At the end of the last conversation, I could see I would have to take my tutoring program elsewhere. It isn’t that he can’t use the help. In his school last spring, just 63% of the 4th graders and 59% of the 6th graders passed the state standardized math tests. It isn’t that he can’t let me in the door. I’m not a whacko, drug addict or criminal. I’ve volunteered in this school district for the last six years. The reasons I took my tutoring elsewhere are these:
- I want to teach arithmetic. The principal insisted he wouldn’t feel “comfortable” unless I taught multiple ways to solve math problems. He did NOT want me to focus on traditional algorithms.
- I want to teach arithmetic. The principal said he wants me to include other subjects in the tutoring (such as language arts).
- I know my limitations. The principal said he wants me to include all types of learners, including students who qualify for special education. When I made it clear I’m not trained in special education, he accused me of not meaning it when I said everyone can learn arithmetic.
- He said there is no money available for tutoring in arithmetic. Therefore, parents would be charged for something their children should be getting for free in the classroom.
What a mess.
The principal and I batted this conversation back and forth for more than an hour. He kept saying the same meaningless things over and over.
“Why do the students even need the Lattice Method?” I asked him at one point.
“So they can get a deeper understanding of the concept,” he said.
“Right, so we teach the traditional algorithm, we show them how it works, we have them practice it, and they get that deeper understanding,” I said. “Why do they need the Lattice Method?”
Pause. “So they can get a deeper understanding,” he said firmly, still certain.
At last, reluctantly, I gave up. I got in touch with a local tutor, who invited me to volunteer at an outreach center. And there, I must say, I am getting one hell of an education.
The students there have heartbreaking challenges in their life, and I can do nothing at all about most of them. Despite the fact that reform math is supposed to help disadvantaged students, these students have the same gaps in math knowledge as everybody else (exacerbated by the additional challenges).
I also found out that high school students who don’t have basic arithmetic skills can be enrolled in Algebra I. They also can be enrolled in Advanced Placement classes. (They’re likely to fail or drop out of these classes, of course, whereupon some administrators will say, “Well, they must have learned something while they were there.”)
I heard that some school counselors advise vulnerable students as follows: “Don’t worry about the exams. To go to the Skills Center or ROTC or college, you need these classes on your transcript. Just take the classes and do a portfolio or project at the end. They’ll let you graduate and then you can do what you want.”
These high school students are nervous, scared even – filled with bravado and doubt in equal portions, frightened of looking stupid. “I’m not (worried) about it,” one of them said to me repeatedly, not meeting my gaze. Watching him, I pondered the “discovery” learning method, so enthusiastically and inexplicably embraced by the schools. Like everyone else, this student will be told to work in groups and on his own to “discover” his own methods. I imagined him trying to discover thousands of years of math by trial and error. It made me angry. He needs to be taught, not pitched back into the hell of the Discovery Dog and Pony Show. But what do district administrators know of him or the other students in this district? What do board members know? Very little. Next to nothing. Maybe nothing at all.
I have an idea. District administrators and board members should set a policy of going into the schools each month for a certain amount of time, where they must tutor the students. If they do this, they’ll see 4th graders who already hate mathematics, 6th-graders who add on their fingers, and high school students who aren’t sure of how to do long division. They’ll see smart but ill-prepared students who flunked out of their AP classes and who now worry their friends see them as stupid.
They’ll see kids with fierce dreams, daunting fears and multiple life challenges – kids whose future looms large and forbidding in their mind. They’ll see that by high school, the students’ gaps in critical academic skills and knowledge are enormous, monstrous, and seemingly insurmountable.
They’ll see principals who are absolutely certain beyond any shadow of a doubt that current teaching methods will work, despite the entire last decade of contrary evidence.
Unless they are willfully blind to it, administrators and board members will see their hand in this mess, and they’ll see the gargantuan gap between what they’re doing and what they could and should be doing.
It’s so easy for administrators to sit around and make policy, to approve this or that, pontificate about how great things are, go on television and moan about a pretend lack of money, and commiserate with each other about how parents, students, legislators and teachers are to blame for the low test scores. "Stay in school,” they tell students. “Work hard. Do your best. Take this seriously.” As if that fixes it. It’s harder to go into the classroom and find out how things really are. It’s harder to go to PTA meetings and listen to frustrated parents. It’s harder to watch as children valiantly attempt to follow ineffectual district curricula and policies.
It’s really hard to sit in the hallway with a 4th-grader and his math homework and try to convince him that he is NOT stupid, that math is NOT hard, that he WILL get it -- all the while knowing that he’s going back to a curriculum that will continue to confuse him. It’s really easy to show that child how to do it properly and to help him practice it. It’s really rewarding to see him get it. It’s really stupid that this tutoring process is so necessary right now. It’s criminal that administrative roadblocks keep it from happening.
Here’s my challenge to administrators and school board members. If you’re really there to do some good, then get out of your office, sit down with the students and start learning something. Your customers have something to teach you.
Please note: The information in this post is copyrighted. The proper citation is:
Rogers, L. (September, 2009). "Administrators, board members need reality check." Retrieved (date) from the Betrayed Web site: http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailing.blogspot.com/
This article was published Sept. 16, 2009, on ednews.org at http://www.ednews.org/articles/administrators-board-members-need-reality-check-.html
Friday, August 28, 2009
Blame math problem on administrators
(Updated Oct. 2, 2009)
During the Aug. 26 board meeting for Spokane Public Schools, Razak Garoui, director of Assessment and Program Evaluation, blamed new legislation for the district’s abysmal math test scores. (According to a previous news report, he also said scores were low because students didn’t take the test seriously.)
Listening to Dr. Garoui, I was reminded of a song that was NOT sung by Milli Vanilli. “Blame It On the Rain” was a major hit for Milli Vanilli late in 1989, just before news broke that the duo was only pretending to sing. While suffering through the pretense of Dr. Garoui’s Aug. 26 presentation, I recalled the chorus of “Blame It On the Rain”:
During the Aug. 26 board meeting for Spokane Public Schools, Razak Garoui, director of Assessment and Program Evaluation, blamed new legislation for the district’s abysmal math test scores. (According to a previous news report, he also said scores were low because students didn’t take the test seriously.)
Listening to Dr. Garoui, I was reminded of a song that was NOT sung by Milli Vanilli. “Blame It On the Rain” was a major hit for Milli Vanilli late in 1989, just before news broke that the duo was only pretending to sing. While suffering through the pretense of Dr. Garoui’s Aug. 26 presentation, I recalled the chorus of “Blame It On the Rain”:
“Gotta blame it on something
Blame it on the rain (rain)
Blame it on the stars (stars)
Whatever you do don't put the blame on you
Blame it on the rain yeah yeah
You can blame it on the rain”
I became annoyed with Dr. Garoui and Milli Vanilli. As a diversion, I found and began to read the August 2009 issue of the district’s newsletter “School Talk.” The issue contains an article titled “It All Adds Up To Math.” In this article:
- A Shadle Park high school teacher says, “I’m impressed by the students’ depth of understanding, and their ability to communicate mathematical ideas.”
(Shadle’s pass rate for the 10th-grade math test in 2009 was 47.4%.) - A Ridgeview Elementary School teacher says, “Kids are able to apply concepts seamlessly in different contexts. They are excited about math now.”
(Ridgeview’s pass rates for the 3rd-6th-grade math tests were 62.1%, 56.3%, 58.2% and 43.5%). - A Chase Middle School teacher says, “The curriculum does a good job of pushing kids to discover their own understanding. And it also allows time to practice skills and algorithms.” (Chase’s pass rates for the 7th-8th-grade math tests were 52.8% and 55.6%).
- The article says: “Student scores on statewide assessments are, in some cases, showing improvement. However, there are still students not achieving at the level necessary to demonstrate mastery of standards."
(No kidding. Nowhere in this happy article is the fact that in 2009, Spokane Public Schools' 10th-grade math WASL pass rate was just 42.3%.)
Following Dr. Garoui’s comments, board member Dr. Jeff Bierman, a physics professor at Gonzaga, commented on the “abysmal” WASL results for mathematics and on the “almost deceitful” district representation of student achievement. That’s when Superintendent Nancy Stowell blamed the low test scores on the teachers. She said the math problem isn’t just about curriculum; it’s about the quality of teaching. She added, “And we have a real problem in this district” with quality teaching.
Wow. Really? That’s probably news to Spokane teachers. The Garoui/Stowell comments are unsupported by evidence. They actually stand in direct opposition to the flood of available evidence on Spokane’s execrable math curricula. After everything she’s heard – over several years and from parents, teachers and advocates – after all of the research and reports she’s received – Dr. Stowell prefers to just blame the teachers.
“Gotta blame it on something
Blame it on the rain that was falling, falling
Blame it on the stars that did shine at night
Whatever you do don't put the blame on you
Blame it on the rain yeah yeah”
This isn’t the first time I’ve heard Dr. Stowell blame the teachers. In a 2008 interview, I told her some teachers believe they’ve been disciplined for voicing their concerns, and she said that didn’t surprise her. The district has “a wide variety of teachers out there,” she said, “some of them very, very successful; and some less successful. And so, you know, people have issues along that continuum.” Some teachers just don’t like change, she added – somewhat hypocritically, I thought, considering that, as a whole, she and her fellow administrators seem completely adverse to effective change. These administrators are a nearly immoveable force – stain-resistant, impermeable, opaque and impervious. They’re like a black hole, sucking in all available taxpayer money and emitting no Light At the End of the Tunnel.
Teachers, however, are forced to change. They either change in response to every administrative whim, or they’re forced out. Afraid to voice their concerns, many teachers become silent and submissive. And yet – while doing exactly as they’re told – teachers are still blamed for low test scores.
“We have a real problem” with quality teaching, Dr. Stowell says.
Jim Harrison, 6th-grade teacher at Balboa Elementary School, was neither silent nor submissive. He fought a long and almost solitary fight for better mathematics instruction in Spokane. Parents and students are fond of him. They look up to him and believe he gave them his best. Last spring, Jim’s principal, Pat Lynass, broke WASL testing protocol in Jim’s class in several ways. A district spokesperson said Ms. Lynass will not be disciplined for these infractions. Jim’s class, however, was labeled a “problem.” This year, Jim is on a leave of absence. Next year, he retires.
“You got to blame it on something
(Blame it on the rain)
(Blame it on the stars)
Whatever you do don't put the blame on you”
Teachers, parents and students tend to be blamed because they have little voice. Even as Dr. Stowell and her curriculum coordinators say publicly that no one knows how to solve the math problem – that “no one has a silver bullet” – they refuse to listen to the people who DO know how to solve the math problem.
People all over the world HAVE solved the math problem, just by teaching it properly. That’s all it takes. They teach it. They don’t blame teachers, students, legislators, a fake lack of money, new standards, student hormones, parents, society, or students’ alleged bad attitude. They don’t ask students to learn mathematics by cutting out paper dolls, playing with molding clay and straws, or counting bird calls. They don’t expect children to teach math to each other or to themselves. Recognizing that it’s silly to teach mathematics by not teaching it, people all over the world just get up there and teach it – effectively, efficiently, with little fanfare but with superior results.
In Spokane, it would be refreshing to hear administrators say, “We’ve really screwed this up. We don’t have a problem with quality teaching; what we have here is a failure in administration. We should all leave right now, give up our pay, our bonuses, our travel allowances and our fancy offices. We stink. We should give back several years of pay. In fact, we should pay the students for what we’ve done to them.”
But I doubt we’ll ever hear anything from Spokane administrators acknowledging their responsibility for the mess that is K-12 math instruction. It’s time board members took Dr. Stowell to task. She and some of her employees have said that no one knows how to solve the math problem. This is both arrogant and incorrect. A positive step toward fixing the math problem in Spokane would be for Nancy Stowell, the math curriculum coordinators, their supervisors – and sure, while we’re at it, Razak Garoui – to resign.
Please note: The information in this post is copyrighted. The proper citation is:Rogers, L. (August, 2009). "Blame math problem on administrators." Retrieved (date) from the Betrayed Web site: http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailing.blogspot.com/
This article was published Aug. 31, 2009, on Ednews.org, at: http://www.ednews.org/articles/blame-math-problem-on-administrators.html
Friday, August 21, 2009
FACT: SPS looks bad in testing violations
(Updated Aug. 28, 2009)
In the spring of 2009, Madison Chapman was a student in Jim Harrison's 6th-grade class at Balboa Elementary School, Spokane, WA. During the administration of the state standardized test (the WASL), Pat Lynass, principal of Balboa Elementary, violated WASL protocol by interfering with the secure administration of the test. (This is not in dispute.) Since then, Spokane Public Schools (SPS) administrators have gone on the record as saying that the principal will not be disciplined for these violations, but that Jim Harrison's class is a "problem." (Mr. Harrison has been vocal in the past about Spokane's poor mathematics curricula.)
On Aug. 12, Madison's father, Hal Chapman, spoke to the school board. Before his allotted five minutes were up, the school board president interrupted Mr. Chapman to tell him his time was running out and to ask him to summarize. The president said the state was looking at the issue and the district had to leave it with the state. Mr. Chapman said his goal was to deliver the facts to the school board and to the assembled people, and he asked the board for another minute so he could finish his presentation. After a brief discussion, the president agreed to give him another minute.
Following is the full text of Hal Chapman's presentation to the school board on August 12.
***
I would like to take this time to thank the board for giving me this opportunity to speak about events that led to an official bullying and harassment complaint form being filed on behalf of Madison Chapman, 6th grader at Balboa Elementary.
The District has made attempts to mask the reason Pat Lynass was proctor in Mr. Harrison's class. I am here today to make the FACTS very clear to everyone.
Fact: On April 16th, Pat Lynass, while alone, thumbed through finished WASL tests in the privacy of her own office. Fact: That is a violation of WASL rules and protocol.
While thumbing through those tests, Pat Lynass came across a few students whom she felt could have made a better effort to answer questions that would be more favorable to the school and the district.
Fact: Pat Lynass had 5 days from April 16th to April 21st to come to the teacher, the students, or their parents and discuss what she found. She chose not to.
On April 21st, just before the test was about to begin, Pat Lynass excused the original proctor and assumed the duties of proctor in that classroom for the day. Within minutes after the test began, Pat Lynass made her way to Madison Chapman and leaned down and told her that if she didn't do well on this portion of the WASL exam she would NOT be able to get into an advanced placement math class at Salk Middle School next year -- A BOLD-FACED LIE.
Fact: This is against WASL protocol. Trying to influence a child into getting answers that are more favorable to the school and the district is considered cheating and is a VERY serious violation.
Fact: WASL test scores for incoming 7th graders are NOT utilized to prevent students from accessing the honors program.
The fact that Pat Lynass had information on the 16th and decided to use that information 5 days later to harass/bully and manipulate a 12-year-old child is VERY disturbing. To have the district condone this behavior by a principal would validate suspicions that these violations are tolerated and accepted as a means to manipulate scores in favor of the school and the district.
Fact: The teacher Mr. Harrison excused Madison to use the bathroom after Pat Lynass had humiliated her and she began to cry. Pat Lynass proceeded to follow Madison into the bathroom and closed the door behind her. She then continued to badger Maddi until she no longer wanted to go back into the classroom to finish the test.
Fact: Pat Lynass as the proctor has an obligation to provide a quiet testing atmosphere and remain in that classroom to proctor, and AGAIN failed to follow protocol.
Fact: Pat Lynass told me she did this because the district failed to meet its AYP for having low test scores, and she had to make sure the district wouldn't fall short of expectations again this year because federal funding was riding on these tests.
Fact: Pat Lynass went over to another student’s test that was finished and lying faced down. Pat Lynass picked up that test. thumbed through it, pointed to an unfinished portion, placed it back in front of the student and told him he needed to finish this test.
Fact: This is another blatant disregard for the rules governing the test. Again -- trying to influence a child into getting answers that favor the school and the district is cheating and AGAIN, I (along with the surrounding parents and taxpayers in Spokane Public School boundaries) are wondering WHY the principal is NOT going to be held accountable for her actions, AND WHY does the district condone this kind of behavior ???
Fact: The district has targeted Mr. Harrison and, on the Channel 4 KXLY 6 o'clock News, has accused him of being a problem teacher.
The district insists that because of the number of people who opted out of the WASL the year prior, Pat Lynass needed to be in Mr. Harrison's classroom on April 21st.
Fact: A parent’s choice to opt a student out of testing is NOT a violation.
Fact: What Pat Lynass has managed to pull off is definitely a series of serious violations.
Fact: I have the original proctor schedule in my possession and Pat Lynass is not on there at all to assume the proctor duties in Mr. Harrison's classroom. If the district felt the need to have Pat observe Mr. Harrison's classroom for something that happened a year ago, the schedule would reflect that.
Fact: It's time the district stops condoning and tolerating this kind of behavior, and ... it's time the district is held accountable for continuing to protect a principal named Pat Lynass who has become a liability. Board members, I hope you are finding this interesting. As you are a publicly elected, volunteer board, ultimately responsible to the community for the successful implementation of the school district’s mission, I have to ask: What exactly was District 81's mission on and after the 21st of April and do you stand behind that mission?
I would like to refer to Ivan Bush’s investigation findings in the bullying report. The investigation did substantiate that Mrs. Lynass's interactions with Madison during testing – and after Madison was released from testing – caused embarrassment and humiliation for her.
I am disgusted that District 81 continues to cover up the real issue, refuses to hold Pat Lynass accountable for her actions, has yet to offer any kind of apology, and worst of all continues to publicly badmouth the best thing Balboa has going for it -- their 6th-grade teacher Mr. Harrison.
I would ask that the board please respond. Thank you.
Hal Chapman
***
In the spring of 2009, Madison Chapman was a student in Jim Harrison's 6th-grade class at Balboa Elementary School, Spokane, WA. During the administration of the state standardized test (the WASL), Pat Lynass, principal of Balboa Elementary, violated WASL protocol by interfering with the secure administration of the test. (This is not in dispute.) Since then, Spokane Public Schools (SPS) administrators have gone on the record as saying that the principal will not be disciplined for these violations, but that Jim Harrison's class is a "problem." (Mr. Harrison has been vocal in the past about Spokane's poor mathematics curricula.)
On Aug. 12, Madison's father, Hal Chapman, spoke to the school board. Before his allotted five minutes were up, the school board president interrupted Mr. Chapman to tell him his time was running out and to ask him to summarize. The president said the state was looking at the issue and the district had to leave it with the state. Mr. Chapman said his goal was to deliver the facts to the school board and to the assembled people, and he asked the board for another minute so he could finish his presentation. After a brief discussion, the president agreed to give him another minute.
Following is the full text of Hal Chapman's presentation to the school board on August 12.
***
I would like to take this time to thank the board for giving me this opportunity to speak about events that led to an official bullying and harassment complaint form being filed on behalf of Madison Chapman, 6th grader at Balboa Elementary.
The District has made attempts to mask the reason Pat Lynass was proctor in Mr. Harrison's class. I am here today to make the FACTS very clear to everyone.
Fact: On April 16th, Pat Lynass, while alone, thumbed through finished WASL tests in the privacy of her own office. Fact: That is a violation of WASL rules and protocol.
While thumbing through those tests, Pat Lynass came across a few students whom she felt could have made a better effort to answer questions that would be more favorable to the school and the district.
Fact: Pat Lynass had 5 days from April 16th to April 21st to come to the teacher, the students, or their parents and discuss what she found. She chose not to.
On April 21st, just before the test was about to begin, Pat Lynass excused the original proctor and assumed the duties of proctor in that classroom for the day. Within minutes after the test began, Pat Lynass made her way to Madison Chapman and leaned down and told her that if she didn't do well on this portion of the WASL exam she would NOT be able to get into an advanced placement math class at Salk Middle School next year -- A BOLD-FACED LIE.
Fact: This is against WASL protocol. Trying to influence a child into getting answers that are more favorable to the school and the district is considered cheating and is a VERY serious violation.
Fact: WASL test scores for incoming 7th graders are NOT utilized to prevent students from accessing the honors program.
The fact that Pat Lynass had information on the 16th and decided to use that information 5 days later to harass/bully and manipulate a 12-year-old child is VERY disturbing. To have the district condone this behavior by a principal would validate suspicions that these violations are tolerated and accepted as a means to manipulate scores in favor of the school and the district.
Fact: The teacher Mr. Harrison excused Madison to use the bathroom after Pat Lynass had humiliated her and she began to cry. Pat Lynass proceeded to follow Madison into the bathroom and closed the door behind her. She then continued to badger Maddi until she no longer wanted to go back into the classroom to finish the test.
Fact: Pat Lynass as the proctor has an obligation to provide a quiet testing atmosphere and remain in that classroom to proctor, and AGAIN failed to follow protocol.
Fact: Pat Lynass told me she did this because the district failed to meet its AYP for having low test scores, and she had to make sure the district wouldn't fall short of expectations again this year because federal funding was riding on these tests.
Fact: Pat Lynass went over to another student’s test that was finished and lying faced down. Pat Lynass picked up that test. thumbed through it, pointed to an unfinished portion, placed it back in front of the student and told him he needed to finish this test.
Fact: This is another blatant disregard for the rules governing the test. Again -- trying to influence a child into getting answers that favor the school and the district is cheating and AGAIN, I (along with the surrounding parents and taxpayers in Spokane Public School boundaries) are wondering WHY the principal is NOT going to be held accountable for her actions, AND WHY does the district condone this kind of behavior ???
Fact: The district has targeted Mr. Harrison and, on the Channel 4 KXLY 6 o'clock News, has accused him of being a problem teacher.
The district insists that because of the number of people who opted out of the WASL the year prior, Pat Lynass needed to be in Mr. Harrison's classroom on April 21st.
Fact: A parent’s choice to opt a student out of testing is NOT a violation.
Fact: What Pat Lynass has managed to pull off is definitely a series of serious violations.
Fact: I have the original proctor schedule in my possession and Pat Lynass is not on there at all to assume the proctor duties in Mr. Harrison's classroom. If the district felt the need to have Pat observe Mr. Harrison's classroom for something that happened a year ago, the schedule would reflect that.
Fact: It's time the district stops condoning and tolerating this kind of behavior, and ... it's time the district is held accountable for continuing to protect a principal named Pat Lynass who has become a liability. Board members, I hope you are finding this interesting. As you are a publicly elected, volunteer board, ultimately responsible to the community for the successful implementation of the school district’s mission, I have to ask: What exactly was District 81's mission on and after the 21st of April and do you stand behind that mission?
I would like to refer to Ivan Bush’s investigation findings in the bullying report. The investigation did substantiate that Mrs. Lynass's interactions with Madison during testing – and after Madison was released from testing – caused embarrassment and humiliation for her.
I am disgusted that District 81 continues to cover up the real issue, refuses to hold Pat Lynass accountable for her actions, has yet to offer any kind of apology, and worst of all continues to publicly badmouth the best thing Balboa has going for it -- their 6th-grade teacher Mr. Harrison.
I would ask that the board please respond. Thank you.
Hal Chapman
***
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
