By Laurie H. Rogers
Several days ago, someone sent me an article on “teaching math for social justice.” I actually hit my desk while reading it, narrowly missing the cat. I shouldn't read things like that first thing in the morning. It raises my blood pressure and gets the next 12 hours off to a bad start.
In the article, teaching math for social justice isn’t about math or justice; it’s about pursuing a narrow political agenda in the classroom, through the children. Math is relegated to the wings, used as a vehicle through which the agenda is delivered.
The article was in a 2010 special edition of the National Council for Teachers of Mathematics’ Journal for Research in Mathematics Education (JRME). This issue is dedicated to “equity” in math instruction, “with a focus on power and identity.” After years of advocacy, I shouldn’t be surprised by what comes out of the NCTM, but this special edition still was a cold shock.
The NCTM, you’ll recall, is responsible for the current incarnation of “fuzzy” math, born in the depths of hell in the 1980s. Many NCTM presidents and officers have their name on, and fingers in, today’s “reform” math curricula (including the curricula still sucking the lifeblood out of children in Spokane). Unhappily for this author, some now are involved in federal initiatives related to the Common Core State Standards and assessment consortia.
After decades of abject failure of the fuzzy approach, you’d think the NCTM would reject anything that further detracts from learning math. Instead, this trend to teach math through “equity and social justice” is gathering steam, fostered by social activists, self-interested groups like the NCTM – and well-meaning people who don’t realize the intent. For social activists, the agenda isn’t about “equity of opportunity" or justice under the law. It’s political, sociological activism, designed to move students in a specific political direction based on a particular world view. This activism, masquerading as math, is inappropriate and unhelpful.
Many states have policies or laws prohibiting schools from using public funds, facilities or venues for political purposes. Therefore, this activism is ethically, even legally questionable. It’s also a betrayal of trust for schools and teachers to push a particular political point of view on captive, vulnerable, attentive children (paid for by unaware taxpayers). And, there are practical issues of time and resources. This activist agenda is unlikely to help children academically.
The children need academics in order to be successful in their postsecondary life. It bears repeating: Academics are the schools’ mission. Many in education disagree with that statement, but their disagreement doesn’t change its truth. The time and resources spent on any political agenda takes away from academics. Those who see the agenda as more important won’t mind, but parents would … if they knew about it.
Let’s examine that special edition of the JRME.
In the editorial The sociopolitical turn in mathematics education, Rochelle Gutiérrez says that, over a decade, math education researchers incorporated sociocultural concepts into their work. But now, those with “a long history of addressing anti-racism and social justice issues in mathematics have moved beyond this sociocultural view to espouse sociopolitical concepts and theories, highlighting identity and power at play.”
Gutiérrez warns against “focusing on discourse to the point where mathematics disappears,” but she fails to acknowledge the alarming fact that it’s already largely happened.
The abstract for Margaret Walshaw’s Post-structuralism and ethical practical action: Issues of identity and power says her article explains “how mathematical identifications are tied to the social organization of power. An analysis of 2 everyday instances is provided to capture the oppressive conditions in which ordinary people involved in mathematics are engaged.”
(I’m feeling a bit “oppressed” myself, actually. All of the power to fix the math program in Spokane rests with people who refuse to do it.)
In Learning to teach mathematics for social justice: Negotiating social justice and mathematical goals, the article that caused me to startle the cat, Tonya Gau Bartell says math classes should examine concepts such as prisons vs. education, and institutionalized racism. Students could “use mathematics to expose an injustice, that minimum wage is not a living wage, and would brainstorm possible actions they could take to affect (sic) change.”
(It’s a blending of sociology, activism and math … minus the math.)
The article that does ring true is David W. Stinson’s Negotiating the “‘White Male Math Myth”: African American male students and success in school mathematics. Weighed down by a nearly unintelligible abstract, it nevertheless reaches the heart of the issue. Teachers should find ways to use students’ frame of reference to drive the lessons. It’s how you reach a student. Reaching a student is how you teach the student, and teaching all students what they need to know is how you achieve equity of opportunity, and justice for all. But who believes that?
Activists prefer to frame math lessons around their politics, values and world view. In doing so, they interfere with the very process that helps students succeed. They also place squat, fat barriers between children and their unknowing parents. Already, mathematics has been politicized, socialized and stupefied into near drivel. We don’t have a generation ready to take over the reins of the country. It’s much, much worse out there than you think.
When the agenda is the priority, student outcomes become less important. Public dissent is seen as irrelevant, and it falls on deaf ears. Look at the mission statement and goals for Spokane Public Schools. College readiness isn’t mentioned. It’s all about “aligning,” “developing” and “empowering.” We aren’t talking about the same things. “The children are failing.” Irrelevant. “They need substantial remedial math in college.” Irrelevant. “They have almost no math skills to speak of.” Irrelevant. “Listen to me! I have something to tell you.” Irrelevant. Administrators and board directors actually have told me I have nothing to tell them about what my child needs.
What is relevant to them? They claim without proof that students are gaining “deeper conceptual understanding” in math through “real-world application.” For one thing, their “real world” is largely foreign to the children. For another, you can’t have “deeper conceptual understanding” without academic knowledge. But that, too, is seen as irrelevant. They don’t view math as a useful skill, a field unto itself that requires focus and a logical, linear progression of concepts. To them, math is a prop, grabbed on the fly to frame and illustrate their sociological concerns.
They refuse to give students the academic skills they need to be successful, productive citizens and not stricken with poverty. Who is oppressing whom? Yeah, yeah, I know. Irrelevant.
Google the term “educators for social justice” and see how equity, social justice, anti-oppression, environmentalism, anti-American "imperialism," the disdain and devaluing of military service, pro-“immigrant reform” (i.e. amnesty), selective law obeying, moral relativism and anti-capitalism are increasingly embraced as core education themes and embedded throughout the nation’s K-12 curriculum. Young students must ponder weighty social issues while not being taught enough usable math. Grammar has been replaced with self-absorbed and generally useless exploration. Many history and social studies classes focus on social change and transformation, rather than on names of state capitols or the “rich white men” who signed the U.S. Constitution.
Notice the research focus in the profiles of master’s and doctoral students in the math education program at the University of Washington. “Progressive pedagogy”; how “identity, status, and equity play into success in mathematics”; “equity issues, professional learning communities, and literacy instruction in mathematics classrooms”; “a complex-instruction mathematics classroom through relational pedagogy”; and “examining the Eurocentric nature of mainstream mathematics—its segregated image, content, and pedagogy.” Where is the mathematics?
On the Web site for Teachers 4 Social Justice, the mission is to “provide opportunities for self-transformation, leadership, and community building to educators in order to affect (sic) meaningful change in the classroom, school, community and society.”
Whose definition of “meaningful change” holds sway? (And does no one know the difference between “affect” and “effect”?)
The group Rethinking Schools asks, “How do we bring the fight to protect and transform public schools into our classrooms? How do we connect our classrooms to the struggles in the streets?” An article on the site is titled Teaching budget cuts to third graders. Assisted by editor Bill Bigelow, the group published Rethinking Mathematics: Teaching Social Justice by the Numbers – a collection of articles showing “how to weave social-justice principles throughout the math curriculum, and how to integrate social-justice math into other curricular areas as well.”
Bigelow also wrote the article Patriotism Makes Kids Stupid for Pledging Allegiance: The Politics of Patriotism in America’s Schools. This 2007 book showcases “educators who refuse to toe the new ‘patriotic’ line.” (Also included is commentary from Bill Ayers, former member of the radical Weather Underground who reportedly told the The New York Times in 2001, “I don't regret setting bombs...I feel we didn't do enough.”)
Rethinking Schools is sponsoring the Oct. 1st 4th Annual Northwest Conference on Teaching for Social Justice in Seattle. Please read the conference agenda. In its Equity Library, Spokane carries five books edited by Bill Bigelow.
Meanwhile, the Teaching for Change Web site says it “provides teachers and parents with the tools to transform schools into centers of justice where students learn to read, write and change the world.” Teaching for Change is affiliated with the Zinn Education Project, in which activist Howard Zinn encouraged students to write about “unsung heroes,” including Elaine Brown, a former leader of the Black Panthers; Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, a longtime communist; and Leonard Peltier, who was convicted of murder (and is currently incarcerated).
Zinn provided materials that focus on the “oppressed,” without offering much in counterbalance. He offered a list of like-minded organizations, such as the New York Collective of Radical Educators, which tells teachers to advocate for full amnesty for those who are in the country illegally, and to “proactively” help students avoid military service.
This is just a snippet of the politics flooding K-12 education at the expense of academics. Spokane says “social justice is at the heart of our instructional core.” The Bronx has a school devoted to social justice, as do Brooklyn and Chicago. There are others; more are coming. Project-based learning, reform math and constructivism typically drive the social-activist agenda.
This agenda is not about the children. Few in leadership seem focused on academics or inclined to speak up. Parents get little help or truth from media, districts, principals, school boards, governors, legislators, policy-makers, education service districts, publishers, state or federal education agencies, teachers unions, or many “grass-roots” groups that are well-connected, well-funded supporters of the agenda. Frightened for their job, most teachers also remain silent.
On Aug. 27, in the face of ridiculously high college remedial rates, low levels of skills in math and grammar, and persistent community dissent, former Spokane superintendent Gary Livingston claimed without statistical data or support that local schools are just fine. He said what’s really needed is less criticism and more community involvement … (i.e., more of our money).
But, nationwide, $670 billion from all sources was spent for just one year of K-12 education. Despite their persistent complaints of ongoing budget “cuts,” poor things, it will again be more this year. How much was spent on academics? How much on the agenda?
We don’t have to accept it. Students need schools to focus on content knowledge and skills. Any school that refuses to do that, in the name of equity and social justice, is engaging in neither. Many in leadership supplement the program for their own children, or they remove their own children from public schools. (Not that they’ll tell you.) My family left public education this year because of the political agenda. It disrespects our values and presents incorrect, biased and narrow views of history and society. We left because academics aren’t respected. Children struggle with reform math, whereupon they’re blamed and called “the low group.” We left because the district leadership obstinately refuses to tell the truth, change direction, or be accountable for their failure. We left because their allegiance is not to the people; it’s to themselves, to each other, and to the agenda.
If you want academics in schools rather than politics, you’ll have to find a way to make it happen. They show little sign of caring about what parents want and children need.
Please note: The information in this post is copyrighted. The proper citation is: Rogers, L. (September 2011). "Politics driving math classes - not equity, justice ... or math." Retrieved (date) from the Betrayed Web site: http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailing.blogspot.com/
This article was published Sept. 5, 2011, on the Core Knowledge blog at http://blog.coreknowledge.org/2011/09/05/guest-post-politics-driving-math-classes/.
This article also was published Sept. 5, 2011, on the Education Views Web site at http://educationviews.org/2011/09/05/politics-driving-math-classes-not-equity-justice-or-math/
This article also was published Sept. 6, 2011, on the Education News Web site at http://www.educationnews.org/commentaries/160526.html
Saturday, September 3, 2011
Saturday, August 27, 2011
It's good to be the good guy: Teaching in Korea
By Doug Lasken
For a while now, I've had to get accustomed to the characterization of my 25-year teaching career with the Los Angeles Unified School District as a series of reprehensible acts on my part. As a teacher, I've been the bad guy.
First, over the 16 years I taught elementary, I wanted to teach immigrant children how to speak, read and write in English. Prior to 1997 when the passage of Propostion 227 mandated that immigrant children in California should learn English, my views were considered reactionary and contrary to the best interests of Hispanic children. I was told bluntly that by refusing to teach exclusively in Spanish I was destroying the children's chances of success. One coordinator told me I was perpetuating "English as King." "No," I countered, "English is the common language of most of the world," but this was a non-starter in such circles.
It seemed to me also that I should teach the content of core subjects. In elementary, I thought kids should know their times tables, the decimal system, some rudimentary science, and the fundamentals of reading: phonics, spelling and basic grammar. In my 10 years as a high school English teacher, I believed that students should know grammar and should read some novels. I found I was wrong on all counts. It seemed that memorization of the times tables damaged a child's ability to do critical thinking in math, that, for older kids, concepts like measuring one's distance from a celestial object using parallax should never be taught, rather children should "discover" or "construct" it for themselves (an approach called "constructivism"), again to preserve "critical thinking skills."
With the coming of "Whole Language," I was advised that the teacher should sit back while the children teach themselves to read, which they will do if the stories are engaging and have nice illustrations, and I was directed in no uncertain terms to immediately cease all instruction in phonics, spelling and grammar, as these would -- you guessed it -- destroy all hope of reading with critical thinking skills.
Two years ago, as if to ensure fond memories after my retirement, LA Unified decided that novels were of no use to students. Elitist professors, we were told, had forced novels on the high school curriculum at the turn of the last century, and it was time to recognize that we are an information age now and kids need expository reading. So much for Brave New World. Let's assemble that hammock!
Every one of these pedagogical oddities was endorsed at every level of California's adult administrative empire, from the local school board and superintendent to the state board and state department of education, up to and including the federal Department of Education. Never before has so vast an assortment of adults been so completely in the thrall of critical thinking skills without apparently having any themselves. Test scores tell the story: American high school graduates' proficiency levels have fallen and are falling in all areas. No wonder the Obama administration is suddenly against all current testing (though it wants to spend billions on brand-new testing). Let's shoot the messenger.
In the years leading up to my retirement in June '09, I faced another set of negative characterizations, this one pertaining to the practical aspects of my profession. It seems that the nation's failing economy has been largely my fault because my motive for entering the teaching profession was to enrich myself at the public trough. To help me in this nefarious quest, I joined a teachers union, my partner in crime. The union and I conspired to jack up my salary over 25 years to about $70,000. I must confess further that my union buddies and I saw to it that I will receive a pension of about two-thirds of my highest year's salary for the rest of my life, plus...oh the shame...I will have medical coverage! Have you ever heard of anything like this in any other sector? No wonder the state and federal governments are going bust! You need look no further for an explanation.
Let me hasten to add that I'm no apologist for teachers unions. Clearly my perspective diverges from the current vilification of unions on the financial side, but let's be clear that the unions have been complicit in the destruction of American public school pedagogy. In Californina, the United Teachers of Los Angeles and its parent, the California Teachers Association, as well as the national unions, the American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association, have been 100% in support of the prohibition of English instruction of immigrant children, and the abandonment of direct instruction of content, via Whole Language and constructivist dogmas in science and math.
Well, as it happens, retirement has opened some interesting doors for me. I've been teaching in Seoul, on my second tour through the UCLA Writing Project, for whom I teach at South Korean private academies. I'm crazy for Korean food -- it really clears the nasal cavities -- but the compelling benefit of this job is that I went from bad guy to good guy. I love when that happens.
First, no one asked me to stay clear of English because the kids don't know it. In fact, it seems that their status as ESL students is considered a reason to teach them English. Who would have thought? I was paid fairly, and no one seemed to begrudge me that. Forget constructivism here: they want information, skills and methods. Here's another bonus: a special bond between teacher and student is prized. I will transliterate it roughly as "cho." I was encouraged to interact with my students in a number of ways, for instance by going out to lunch with them (sometimes the company paid), by staying after class to tutor, and by discussing essays late at night via email. One night, the students, the school director, another teacher and I went out to see the new "Harry Potter" movie. The next morning, my class read David Denby's review of it in The New Yorker.
All of this stands in stark contrast to the morbid fear in the US of going beyond tightly restricted bonds, where the supposition is that teachers (especially males) -- in addition to being lazy and self-serving -- are predatory. In fact it seems that in Korea, the teacher is prized as a key element in enhancing civilization and culture.
Not to say teachers get a free ride in Korea. In the realm of the private academies, the moms see to it that a teacher who does not deliver disappears pronto. But the default position is that teachers are a key element in the human endeavor. Would that not seem to be the rational view for any civilization?
Doug Lasken is an English teacher, debate coach, consultant and freelancer. Reach him through his blog at http://laskenlog.blogspot.com/
Note from Laurie Rogers: If you would like to submit a guest column on public education, please write to me at wlroge@comcast.net . Please limit columns to about 1,000 words, give or take a few. Columns might be edited for length, content or grammar. You may remain anonymous to the public, however I must know who you are. All decisions on guest columns are the sole right and responsibility of Laurie Rogers.
For a while now, I've had to get accustomed to the characterization of my 25-year teaching career with the Los Angeles Unified School District as a series of reprehensible acts on my part. As a teacher, I've been the bad guy.
First, over the 16 years I taught elementary, I wanted to teach immigrant children how to speak, read and write in English. Prior to 1997 when the passage of Propostion 227 mandated that immigrant children in California should learn English, my views were considered reactionary and contrary to the best interests of Hispanic children. I was told bluntly that by refusing to teach exclusively in Spanish I was destroying the children's chances of success. One coordinator told me I was perpetuating "English as King." "No," I countered, "English is the common language of most of the world," but this was a non-starter in such circles.
It seemed to me also that I should teach the content of core subjects. In elementary, I thought kids should know their times tables, the decimal system, some rudimentary science, and the fundamentals of reading: phonics, spelling and basic grammar. In my 10 years as a high school English teacher, I believed that students should know grammar and should read some novels. I found I was wrong on all counts. It seemed that memorization of the times tables damaged a child's ability to do critical thinking in math, that, for older kids, concepts like measuring one's distance from a celestial object using parallax should never be taught, rather children should "discover" or "construct" it for themselves (an approach called "constructivism"), again to preserve "critical thinking skills."
With the coming of "Whole Language," I was advised that the teacher should sit back while the children teach themselves to read, which they will do if the stories are engaging and have nice illustrations, and I was directed in no uncertain terms to immediately cease all instruction in phonics, spelling and grammar, as these would -- you guessed it -- destroy all hope of reading with critical thinking skills.
Two years ago, as if to ensure fond memories after my retirement, LA Unified decided that novels were of no use to students. Elitist professors, we were told, had forced novels on the high school curriculum at the turn of the last century, and it was time to recognize that we are an information age now and kids need expository reading. So much for Brave New World. Let's assemble that hammock!
Every one of these pedagogical oddities was endorsed at every level of California's adult administrative empire, from the local school board and superintendent to the state board and state department of education, up to and including the federal Department of Education. Never before has so vast an assortment of adults been so completely in the thrall of critical thinking skills without apparently having any themselves. Test scores tell the story: American high school graduates' proficiency levels have fallen and are falling in all areas. No wonder the Obama administration is suddenly against all current testing (though it wants to spend billions on brand-new testing). Let's shoot the messenger.
In the years leading up to my retirement in June '09, I faced another set of negative characterizations, this one pertaining to the practical aspects of my profession. It seems that the nation's failing economy has been largely my fault because my motive for entering the teaching profession was to enrich myself at the public trough. To help me in this nefarious quest, I joined a teachers union, my partner in crime. The union and I conspired to jack up my salary over 25 years to about $70,000. I must confess further that my union buddies and I saw to it that I will receive a pension of about two-thirds of my highest year's salary for the rest of my life, plus...oh the shame...I will have medical coverage! Have you ever heard of anything like this in any other sector? No wonder the state and federal governments are going bust! You need look no further for an explanation.
Let me hasten to add that I'm no apologist for teachers unions. Clearly my perspective diverges from the current vilification of unions on the financial side, but let's be clear that the unions have been complicit in the destruction of American public school pedagogy. In Californina, the United Teachers of Los Angeles and its parent, the California Teachers Association, as well as the national unions, the American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association, have been 100% in support of the prohibition of English instruction of immigrant children, and the abandonment of direct instruction of content, via Whole Language and constructivist dogmas in science and math.
Well, as it happens, retirement has opened some interesting doors for me. I've been teaching in Seoul, on my second tour through the UCLA Writing Project, for whom I teach at South Korean private academies. I'm crazy for Korean food -- it really clears the nasal cavities -- but the compelling benefit of this job is that I went from bad guy to good guy. I love when that happens.
First, no one asked me to stay clear of English because the kids don't know it. In fact, it seems that their status as ESL students is considered a reason to teach them English. Who would have thought? I was paid fairly, and no one seemed to begrudge me that. Forget constructivism here: they want information, skills and methods. Here's another bonus: a special bond between teacher and student is prized. I will transliterate it roughly as "cho." I was encouraged to interact with my students in a number of ways, for instance by going out to lunch with them (sometimes the company paid), by staying after class to tutor, and by discussing essays late at night via email. One night, the students, the school director, another teacher and I went out to see the new "Harry Potter" movie. The next morning, my class read David Denby's review of it in The New Yorker.
All of this stands in stark contrast to the morbid fear in the US of going beyond tightly restricted bonds, where the supposition is that teachers (especially males) -- in addition to being lazy and self-serving -- are predatory. In fact it seems that in Korea, the teacher is prized as a key element in enhancing civilization and culture.
Not to say teachers get a free ride in Korea. In the realm of the private academies, the moms see to it that a teacher who does not deliver disappears pronto. But the default position is that teachers are a key element in the human endeavor. Would that not seem to be the rational view for any civilization?
Doug Lasken is an English teacher, debate coach, consultant and freelancer. Reach him through his blog at http://laskenlog.blogspot.com/
Note from Laurie Rogers: If you would like to submit a guest column on public education, please write to me at wlroge@comcast.net . Please limit columns to about 1,000 words, give or take a few. Columns might be edited for length, content or grammar. You may remain anonymous to the public, however I must know who you are. All decisions on guest columns are the sole right and responsibility of Laurie Rogers.
Sunday, August 21, 2011
Barbie and Jim Brady agree: Math is hard
By Laurie H. Rogers
Omigod! I’m so happy. The mystery is solved. I can finally go back to the peaceful life I left in 2007 when I first realized that Spokane has a serious math problem. Last week, I arrived home from Canada, to multiple emails and phone calls suggesting that I read the Aug. 14 Spokesman-Review article on college math remedial rates. Ever the accommodating advocate, I did, and now I know the truth.
The reason we’re staring at an entire generation of students who lack basic math skills is that math is hard. No, no, it’s true. Jim Brady, from Spokane Falls Community College, reportedly told SR reporter Jody Lawrence-Turner that math is hard, and Lawrence-Turner must not have been able to locate a credible contrary view – anywhere in the country. Plus, Jim Brady is dean of Computing, Math and Science at SFCC. He’s in charge over there, so his opinion must be right.
How easy and obvious. And only three syllables. My world has been magically simplified. I feel a bit silly, though, having completely missed this for four and a half years. I never thought math is hard – certainly not basic math. I thought the district makes math hard – impossible, actually – then turns around and blames everyone else. I’ve argued that for years, to little effect at the central office and school board, and to nearly dead silence at the newspaper. Now I see why they view me with such disdain. I was wrong; why bother talking with someone who’s wrong?
Math is hard. No wonder no one wants to hold the district accountable for the area’s low pass rates on state math tests, high college remedial rates, low levels of math skills in graduates, and high levels of math anxiety across the entire city. If math is hard, that would be totally unfair.
The advocates I know across the country will be relieved to know the problem is solved and we can return to our families. They’ll feel sheepish knowing how wrong we were – about math, about the problem, and about the solution. Indeed, like the caterpillar in Alice in Wonderland says, we’ve been “wrong from beginning to end,” and you can’t be more wrong than that.
It turns out that the math problem isn’t the awful curriculum, distracting learning environment, excessive constructivism, or administrative micromanaging, as we advocates have been saying. Those issues – and the scientifically conducted research on those issues – weren’t mentioned in the newspaper’s Aug. 14 article. They weren’t important enough for the newspaper to examine them at all over the last several years.
The problem isn’t ineffective teachers, as the Spokane superintendent is always saying. It isn’t poverty, as instructional coaches shouted out earlier this year in my community forums. It isn’t a lack of patience on the part of parents, as district administrators frequently interrupted us to claim. It isn’t a money issue (so adding more dollars to the budget won’t fix it). It isn’t too much local decision-making (so a federal takeover of public education won’t fix it). It isn’t due to weak standards, unmotivated children or uninvolved parents. And it isn’t a data problem (so a new $2.5 million data system won’t fix it). We advocates always knew all of that.
But now we know that math is too hard. We must therefore stop expecting things from the leadership. It isn’t fair to be angry about a failed K-12 math program or a failed college remedial math program, not fair to hold Jim Brady or the superintendent accountable for failing to accomplish something that’s obviously impossible. Now we can understand why Mr. Brady and his SFCC colleagues chose recently to align the SFCC math program with Spokane’s failed K-12 math program so that everyone can feel great about math. All of SFCC's remedial math students will be able to continue scaffolding their prior knowledge in order to achieve group consensus on reaching an equitable and socially just number and level of advanced skills, self-constructed in a metacognitive and collaborative stream of child-centered, deeper conceptual, problem-solving alignment.
What a relief. We no longer need to wonder about those privately schooled, homeschooled, and tutored students who do achieve in math, who don’t test into remedial math in college, and who don’t believe that math is hard. They must be anomalies. Perhaps they’re gifted, weird, bionic, or maybe not even real. Honestly, we can’t expect all of the children to be bionic or not real.
Besides, there are more important things in life than math. Things like shopping and movies, taking showers, making a perfect soufflé like Gordon Ramsay on TV, and monitoring one’s horoscope. And there are tons of jobs our graduates can get that don’t require math, like answering the phone, sweeping the floor, and cleaning swimming pools. People also could babysit, mix drinks or lifeguard. There are lots and lots of non-math jobs out there. Lots.
I feel like a huge weight has been lifted from my shoulders, like I just ate a cream puff or a sugary confection. There’s a humming in my ears and I feel a bit lightheaded. I hear Barbie in the background, burbling “Math is too hard” each time someone pulls on the string. How funny and cool that she’s back with us. She really was way ahead of her time.
I did – just for a second – see a small dark shadow out there – insignificant really, what looked like hordes of foreign students pouring across the border to nab seats in our colleges, take jobs in our businesses, and drag American jobs overseas, never to be seen again – but that must have been the sugar rush one gets from eating a Twinkie or reading the local newspaper.
At last I get it. Jim Brady says math has been hard for decades, and I believe him. It’s of no consequence that America’s public schools have depended on the current version of reform math for 22 years now, and on other incarnations of reform math off and on for generations before that. Why make this complicated? Why persist in wrong-headed thinking? Why be antagonistic and difficult, or risk being labeled a nutjob, whacko or conspiracy theorist? Why make everyone feel so awful? Let’s be happy.
I’m sure grammar is too hard, too. The district wisely chose to channel its resources away from grammar to more important things like equity and social justice. Cursive writing also is hard, and history is hard (too many numbers) – and civics. Who can even keep straight all of those branches of government? Especially nowadays.
You know what? The whole damn thing is too hard. I mean really. It’s time to face facts. They can’t teach our children because it can’t be done.
And with this simple concept, pioneered by Barbie, confirmed by Jim Brady, voted on by the school board, implemented by the district, and delivered solemnly to us by The Spokesman-Review, we could reform and transform our entire society.
Numbers in general are hard, don’t you think? All of those pointy edges. You have to add them and subtract them and … what’s that other one?… I’m getting a headache already, just thinking about it. And why should we? They’re all on the Internet. We can find them if we need them. Like, there’s a 3 and a 7 and a 5. And another one – I forget it, exactly, but it has a circle on top of another circle, like glasses, except sideways and with no arms. I think that’s all of them.
Now I can go back to more important business, like figuring out why so few graduates can get into college or get a job. It’s a national problem. I think Jim Brady should run the Federal Reserve. Math is hard there, too. It’s also hard in Congress, where they have so many zeroes. Let’s all take a break from math, take a nap and not worry about it. Someone will do it for us. Like WALL-E. He’ll do it. I love that little guy. The space dancing in WALL-E was so cute, and I’m glad he lived.
I’m hoping that Barbie, Jim Brady and the newspaper will confirm that weeding the garden is hard. I could really get behind them on that one. Also cleaning. And driving. And walking. And thinking. I’ve been doing way too much thinking.
Surprise me, Mr. Brady. Your comments have been a true gift. Give me more. I think my birthday is coming up soon.
Please note: The information in this post is copyrighted. The proper citation is: Rogers, L. (August 2011). "Barbie and Jim Brady agree: Math is hard." Retrieved (date) from the Betrayed Web site: http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailing.blogspot.com/
This article also was posted August 24 at EducationViews: http://educationviews.org/2011/08/24/barbie-and-jim-brady-agree-math-is-hard/
Omigod! I’m so happy. The mystery is solved. I can finally go back to the peaceful life I left in 2007 when I first realized that Spokane has a serious math problem. Last week, I arrived home from Canada, to multiple emails and phone calls suggesting that I read the Aug. 14 Spokesman-Review article on college math remedial rates. Ever the accommodating advocate, I did, and now I know the truth.
The reason we’re staring at an entire generation of students who lack basic math skills is that math is hard. No, no, it’s true. Jim Brady, from Spokane Falls Community College, reportedly told SR reporter Jody Lawrence-Turner that math is hard, and Lawrence-Turner must not have been able to locate a credible contrary view – anywhere in the country. Plus, Jim Brady is dean of Computing, Math and Science at SFCC. He’s in charge over there, so his opinion must be right.
How easy and obvious. And only three syllables. My world has been magically simplified. I feel a bit silly, though, having completely missed this for four and a half years. I never thought math is hard – certainly not basic math. I thought the district makes math hard – impossible, actually – then turns around and blames everyone else. I’ve argued that for years, to little effect at the central office and school board, and to nearly dead silence at the newspaper. Now I see why they view me with such disdain. I was wrong; why bother talking with someone who’s wrong?
Math is hard. No wonder no one wants to hold the district accountable for the area’s low pass rates on state math tests, high college remedial rates, low levels of math skills in graduates, and high levels of math anxiety across the entire city. If math is hard, that would be totally unfair.
The advocates I know across the country will be relieved to know the problem is solved and we can return to our families. They’ll feel sheepish knowing how wrong we were – about math, about the problem, and about the solution. Indeed, like the caterpillar in Alice in Wonderland says, we’ve been “wrong from beginning to end,” and you can’t be more wrong than that.
It turns out that the math problem isn’t the awful curriculum, distracting learning environment, excessive constructivism, or administrative micromanaging, as we advocates have been saying. Those issues – and the scientifically conducted research on those issues – weren’t mentioned in the newspaper’s Aug. 14 article. They weren’t important enough for the newspaper to examine them at all over the last several years.
The problem isn’t ineffective teachers, as the Spokane superintendent is always saying. It isn’t poverty, as instructional coaches shouted out earlier this year in my community forums. It isn’t a lack of patience on the part of parents, as district administrators frequently interrupted us to claim. It isn’t a money issue (so adding more dollars to the budget won’t fix it). It isn’t too much local decision-making (so a federal takeover of public education won’t fix it). It isn’t due to weak standards, unmotivated children or uninvolved parents. And it isn’t a data problem (so a new $2.5 million data system won’t fix it). We advocates always knew all of that.
But now we know that math is too hard. We must therefore stop expecting things from the leadership. It isn’t fair to be angry about a failed K-12 math program or a failed college remedial math program, not fair to hold Jim Brady or the superintendent accountable for failing to accomplish something that’s obviously impossible. Now we can understand why Mr. Brady and his SFCC colleagues chose recently to align the SFCC math program with Spokane’s failed K-12 math program so that everyone can feel great about math. All of SFCC's remedial math students will be able to continue scaffolding their prior knowledge in order to achieve group consensus on reaching an equitable and socially just number and level of advanced skills, self-constructed in a metacognitive and collaborative stream of child-centered, deeper conceptual, problem-solving alignment.
What a relief. We no longer need to wonder about those privately schooled, homeschooled, and tutored students who do achieve in math, who don’t test into remedial math in college, and who don’t believe that math is hard. They must be anomalies. Perhaps they’re gifted, weird, bionic, or maybe not even real. Honestly, we can’t expect all of the children to be bionic or not real.
Besides, there are more important things in life than math. Things like shopping and movies, taking showers, making a perfect soufflé like Gordon Ramsay on TV, and monitoring one’s horoscope. And there are tons of jobs our graduates can get that don’t require math, like answering the phone, sweeping the floor, and cleaning swimming pools. People also could babysit, mix drinks or lifeguard. There are lots and lots of non-math jobs out there. Lots.
I feel like a huge weight has been lifted from my shoulders, like I just ate a cream puff or a sugary confection. There’s a humming in my ears and I feel a bit lightheaded. I hear Barbie in the background, burbling “Math is too hard” each time someone pulls on the string. How funny and cool that she’s back with us. She really was way ahead of her time.
I did – just for a second – see a small dark shadow out there – insignificant really, what looked like hordes of foreign students pouring across the border to nab seats in our colleges, take jobs in our businesses, and drag American jobs overseas, never to be seen again – but that must have been the sugar rush one gets from eating a Twinkie or reading the local newspaper.
At last I get it. Jim Brady says math has been hard for decades, and I believe him. It’s of no consequence that America’s public schools have depended on the current version of reform math for 22 years now, and on other incarnations of reform math off and on for generations before that. Why make this complicated? Why persist in wrong-headed thinking? Why be antagonistic and difficult, or risk being labeled a nutjob, whacko or conspiracy theorist? Why make everyone feel so awful? Let’s be happy.
I’m sure grammar is too hard, too. The district wisely chose to channel its resources away from grammar to more important things like equity and social justice. Cursive writing also is hard, and history is hard (too many numbers) – and civics. Who can even keep straight all of those branches of government? Especially nowadays.
You know what? The whole damn thing is too hard. I mean really. It’s time to face facts. They can’t teach our children because it can’t be done.
And with this simple concept, pioneered by Barbie, confirmed by Jim Brady, voted on by the school board, implemented by the district, and delivered solemnly to us by The Spokesman-Review, we could reform and transform our entire society.
Numbers in general are hard, don’t you think? All of those pointy edges. You have to add them and subtract them and … what’s that other one?… I’m getting a headache already, just thinking about it. And why should we? They’re all on the Internet. We can find them if we need them. Like, there’s a 3 and a 7 and a 5. And another one – I forget it, exactly, but it has a circle on top of another circle, like glasses, except sideways and with no arms. I think that’s all of them.
Now I can go back to more important business, like figuring out why so few graduates can get into college or get a job. It’s a national problem. I think Jim Brady should run the Federal Reserve. Math is hard there, too. It’s also hard in Congress, where they have so many zeroes. Let’s all take a break from math, take a nap and not worry about it. Someone will do it for us. Like WALL-E. He’ll do it. I love that little guy. The space dancing in WALL-E was so cute, and I’m glad he lived.
I’m hoping that Barbie, Jim Brady and the newspaper will confirm that weeding the garden is hard. I could really get behind them on that one. Also cleaning. And driving. And walking. And thinking. I’ve been doing way too much thinking.
Surprise me, Mr. Brady. Your comments have been a true gift. Give me more. I think my birthday is coming up soon.
Please note: The information in this post is copyrighted. The proper citation is: Rogers, L. (August 2011). "Barbie and Jim Brady agree: Math is hard." Retrieved (date) from the Betrayed Web site: http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailing.blogspot.com/
This article also was posted August 24 at EducationViews: http://educationviews.org/2011/08/24/barbie-and-jim-brady-agree-math-is-hard/
Friday, July 29, 2011
District wants data system and more money. Taxpayers want academics and accountability. Vote for Sally.
[Edited August 8]
By Laurie H. Rogers
What’s the point of a school board?
That’s why, on July 27, I asked Spokane board directors to allow the people to vote on whether the district should spend several million tax dollars on a proposed new data system, and on the new federal vision for public education. As directors contemplate these multi-million-dollar expenditures on (unproved) products – they're also contemplating cutting people and programs that parents actually want. So, at the July 27 board meeting, I asked the directors to put the proposed expenditures on a ballot. They were silent. They looked at each other. Then, they went on with their meeting.
Before the July 27 meeting, I gave the directors a copy of my blog article from July 16. That article shows clearly that, rather than engage in full public disclosure, the district tends to present selected slivers of pretend achievement – even as student data indicate serious declines in outcomes. On any measure of what a good district looks like – excellent academic outcomes, college and career readiness, financial and data transparency, administrative accountability – this district fails.
At the July 27 meeting, having received this article, the directors voted unanimously to renew or extend the superintendent’s contract. On what basis did they vote to do that? Astonishingly, they don’t have to say.
Here’s how administrative accountability works in District 81. The district considers the superintendent’s board evaluations to be exempt from public records requests. Staci Vesneske, head of Human Resources, assured me that there were “no discussions of specific incidents of misconduct in any of the evaluation documents” I had requested, and so therefore, the superintendent’s evaluation isn’t open to the public.
Few of the district’s rubrics for evaluating top administrators even contain academic outcomes as a criterion for evaluation. The rubric for the four administrators known as "school directors" (which aren't the same as "board directors") do contain this criterion: “…establishes an effective academic program.” Obviously, they fail in this area, yet there they are, each costing taxpayers more than $100,000 per year. I asked for copies of some past evaluations; when they arrived, they were so heavily redacted they’re actually funny. For example:
We parents, business owners and taxpayers stare at expenditures of $11-12,000 per student, a budget that has NOT been cut since 2002 (despite what the superintendent keeps telling you), high dropout rates, high remedial rates, low levels of skills in math and grammar, ridiculously low levels of pass rates on basic tests, and a nearly complete lack of financial transparency or accountability. Yet, we have no way to know WHY we’re stuck with the same leadership for which we paid excessively last year.
Last week, I heard a business owner say we shouldn’t “throw Nancy Stowell under the bus.” Holding the superintendent accountable for student outcomes is NOT “throwing her under the bus.” She gets paid extremely well to run this district, and she should be held accountable for the results. Instead, the board directors gave her a raise last year, and on July 27, they renewed or extended her contract.
That’s just one reason why voters should vote for Sally Fullmer for the Spokane school board. Sally is a breath of fresh air – not beholden to the union or in sync with the district (as Deana Brower appears to be). Sally believes the board should be answerable to the voters and to parents. She is willing to be the "lone voice in the wilderness," voting against things that will not help our students academically. She intends to make special effort to inform parents and taxpayers about district policy and decision-making. (Board candidate Bob Griffing has said he is NOT intending to be that lone voice -- that once a majority of directors decide, he would support the decision and not speak out against it. But that's what we have now.)]
Our current board directors appear to have an unfortunate tendency to brush off concerns from parents as they cozy up to the superintendent. Board director Bob Douthitt has gone so far as to email administration about how to best present “our” message to the public. Current board relationships appear to be much too friendly to foster real accountability to the people. Having interviewed Deana repeatedly, and having listened to her speak in several public forums, I believe she will continue that trend. She tends to argue for and support the district’s point of view. I know she’s been endorsed by the union, the daily newspaper, and Stand for Children. Like I said, transparency and accountability are in short supply these days. Ask yourself why you don’t get this information elsewhere. Ask why Deana assures Republicans that she's a Republican -- as she is endorsed, trained, and supported by progressives who have the sole goal of electing progressives.
Sally Fullmer agrees that district transparency is a problem. But Deana Brower said during the July 26 Greater Spokane Inc. forum that she’s “very proud” of administrators for supposedly “opening the books” during talks about raising graduation rates. She said administrators engaged in “full disclosure” and “honest conversation.” She said the graduation rate has “increased up to 10%” at one of the high schools, and that “more attention” is being given to extra programs.
(I was eating a muffin at the time and nearly choked. Oh, please. Do read about the district’s actual presentation of graduation rates. We don’t need to be “proud” of full disclosure; full disclosure should be expected. And some of the extra expenditures Deana mentioned wouldn’t be necessary if the district just taught the students properly in the first place.)
Sally Fullmer questions the district’s presentation of student outcomes, whereas Deana praises the district in exactly the same way the district praises itself. Sally questions expenditures, asking if the money is going to the right place. Deana says the state isn’t “fully funding” education (not mentioning that the district now spends several thousand dollars more per student than it did a few years ago, and that the budget has increased by $60 million since 2002). Last year, the local levy paid for administrative salary increases. The public was not told that – not then and not now. Deana’s position is that inflation has been a problem and that the district needs more taxpayer money in order to be successful. But inflation doesn’t account for a $60 million increase on a $250 million budget – especially when student enrollment has dropped by thousands of students (net).
I thought about comments from Deana Brower and Bob Griffing on July 27 as the board talked about the proposed data system -- right before they continued discussing cutting instructional assistants. The district’s torturously long presentation assured the board directors that this new (untested, unfunded, unproved, unnecessary) multi-million-dollar data system – to be preceded by a preliminary expenditure of $500,000 – would somehow improve student outcomes, reduce dropout rates, and increase graduation rates. You can see the presentation: click on the PDF for the July 27, 2011, Board Book. Read it and weep.
After the district's presentation, no board director said, “Uh … where is the proof this system works? How can we possibly spend taxpayer money on this data system when we just cut remedial programs, we’ve whined to the public about possibly cutting teachers, programs, or after-school activities, and now we’re talking about cutting instructional staff?”
Dear board directors: Repeat after me: Data does not teach a child – not even snazzy data that slices and dices the students 17 ways from Sunday. Administrators will ignore this new flood of data just as they ignore the flood of student data they already have. Nancy Stowell and her administrators will do what they’re doing now, which is to imply that they’re fabulously successful and it’s just the teachers, parents, students and, well, the entire community that are flawed.
After viewing the district presentation for the data system, you can scroll down in that same July 27, 2011, Board Book to the budget presentation. See how the district also plans to set aside a few million dollars for an (untested, unfunded, unproved, unfinished) nationalized K-8 math curriculum (AKA the Common Core initiatives). The district isn’t telling you – but I know – that the federal government has indicated plans to have nationalized standards, tests, and curricula in ALL subjects. Nationalized science standards already are in the works. District expenditures for this federal plan will be massive and ongoing. The time to say no is now. But our district administrators support it. The board so far has supported it. Deana’s comments indicate that she supports it. Sally Fullmer, however, does not support it.
Do you see that the trend is to push for ever-more money for non-academic expenditures? Deana Brower says the district needs more money and that the superintendent’s salary is not excessive. Sally Fullmer says the Spokane superintendent's salary is excessive but that the larger issue is: Is she getting the job done?
We need someone who will question the district and advocate for the people. I believe that Sally Fullmer "gets it," and I believe she will hold the district accountable. Please vote for Sally and give her a chance to advocate for you.
Please note: The information in this post is copyrighted. The proper citation is:
Rogers, L. (July 2011). "District wants data system and more money. Taxpayers want academics and accountability. Vote for Sally." Retrieved (date) from the Betrayed Web site: http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailing.blogspot.com/
By Laurie H. Rogers
What’s the point of a school board?
- Is the role of a board director accountability and responsiveness to the district -- or to voters?
- Should directors work to support the superintendent and staff? Or, should they work to hold the district accountable for fiscal responsibility and academic outcomes?
- If the district and the voters disagree on what should happen with taxpayer money and our children, to whom should the board listen?
That’s why, on July 27, I asked Spokane board directors to allow the people to vote on whether the district should spend several million tax dollars on a proposed new data system, and on the new federal vision for public education. As directors contemplate these multi-million-dollar expenditures on (unproved) products – they're also contemplating cutting people and programs that parents actually want. So, at the July 27 board meeting, I asked the directors to put the proposed expenditures on a ballot. They were silent. They looked at each other. Then, they went on with their meeting.
Before the July 27 meeting, I gave the directors a copy of my blog article from July 16. That article shows clearly that, rather than engage in full public disclosure, the district tends to present selected slivers of pretend achievement – even as student data indicate serious declines in outcomes. On any measure of what a good district looks like – excellent academic outcomes, college and career readiness, financial and data transparency, administrative accountability – this district fails.
At the July 27 meeting, having received this article, the directors voted unanimously to renew or extend the superintendent’s contract. On what basis did they vote to do that? Astonishingly, they don’t have to say.
Here’s how administrative accountability works in District 81. The district considers the superintendent’s board evaluations to be exempt from public records requests. Staci Vesneske, head of Human Resources, assured me that there were “no discussions of specific incidents of misconduct in any of the evaluation documents” I had requested, and so therefore, the superintendent’s evaluation isn’t open to the public.
Few of the district’s rubrics for evaluating top administrators even contain academic outcomes as a criterion for evaluation. The rubric for the four administrators known as "school directors" (which aren't the same as "board directors") do contain this criterion: “…establishes an effective academic program.” Obviously, they fail in this area, yet there they are, each costing taxpayers more than $100,000 per year. I asked for copies of some past evaluations; when they arrived, they were so heavily redacted they’re actually funny. For example:
- This is what remains from a paragraph for Lorna Spear: “Lorna … She … She … her … she….”;
- From a paragraph for Jon Swett: “Jon … He … his … He…”;
- From a paragraph for Irene Gonzalez: “Irene … She … She …”;
- From an eight-line paragraph on Tammy Campbell: “Tammy. She … Her … her … She … Tammy … She … Tammy … her … her … her …”
We parents, business owners and taxpayers stare at expenditures of $11-12,000 per student, a budget that has NOT been cut since 2002 (despite what the superintendent keeps telling you), high dropout rates, high remedial rates, low levels of skills in math and grammar, ridiculously low levels of pass rates on basic tests, and a nearly complete lack of financial transparency or accountability. Yet, we have no way to know WHY we’re stuck with the same leadership for which we paid excessively last year.
Last week, I heard a business owner say we shouldn’t “throw Nancy Stowell under the bus.” Holding the superintendent accountable for student outcomes is NOT “throwing her under the bus.” She gets paid extremely well to run this district, and she should be held accountable for the results. Instead, the board directors gave her a raise last year, and on July 27, they renewed or extended her contract.
That’s just one reason why voters should vote for Sally Fullmer for the Spokane school board. Sally is a breath of fresh air – not beholden to the union or in sync with the district (as Deana Brower appears to be). Sally believes the board should be answerable to the voters and to parents. She is willing to be the "lone voice in the wilderness," voting against things that will not help our students academically. She intends to make special effort to inform parents and taxpayers about district policy and decision-making. (Board candidate Bob Griffing has said he is NOT intending to be that lone voice -- that once a majority of directors decide, he would support the decision and not speak out against it. But that's what we have now.)]
Our current board directors appear to have an unfortunate tendency to brush off concerns from parents as they cozy up to the superintendent. Board director Bob Douthitt has gone so far as to email administration about how to best present “our” message to the public. Current board relationships appear to be much too friendly to foster real accountability to the people. Having interviewed Deana repeatedly, and having listened to her speak in several public forums, I believe she will continue that trend. She tends to argue for and support the district’s point of view. I know she’s been endorsed by the union, the daily newspaper, and Stand for Children. Like I said, transparency and accountability are in short supply these days. Ask yourself why you don’t get this information elsewhere. Ask why Deana assures Republicans that she's a Republican -- as she is endorsed, trained, and supported by progressives who have the sole goal of electing progressives.
Sally Fullmer agrees that district transparency is a problem. But Deana Brower said during the July 26 Greater Spokane Inc. forum that she’s “very proud” of administrators for supposedly “opening the books” during talks about raising graduation rates. She said administrators engaged in “full disclosure” and “honest conversation.” She said the graduation rate has “increased up to 10%” at one of the high schools, and that “more attention” is being given to extra programs.
(I was eating a muffin at the time and nearly choked. Oh, please. Do read about the district’s actual presentation of graduation rates. We don’t need to be “proud” of full disclosure; full disclosure should be expected. And some of the extra expenditures Deana mentioned wouldn’t be necessary if the district just taught the students properly in the first place.)
Sally Fullmer questions the district’s presentation of student outcomes, whereas Deana praises the district in exactly the same way the district praises itself. Sally questions expenditures, asking if the money is going to the right place. Deana says the state isn’t “fully funding” education (not mentioning that the district now spends several thousand dollars more per student than it did a few years ago, and that the budget has increased by $60 million since 2002). Last year, the local levy paid for administrative salary increases. The public was not told that – not then and not now. Deana’s position is that inflation has been a problem and that the district needs more taxpayer money in order to be successful. But inflation doesn’t account for a $60 million increase on a $250 million budget – especially when student enrollment has dropped by thousands of students (net).
I thought about comments from Deana Brower and Bob Griffing on July 27 as the board talked about the proposed data system -- right before they continued discussing cutting instructional assistants. The district’s torturously long presentation assured the board directors that this new (untested, unfunded, unproved, unnecessary) multi-million-dollar data system – to be preceded by a preliminary expenditure of $500,000 – would somehow improve student outcomes, reduce dropout rates, and increase graduation rates. You can see the presentation: click on the PDF for the July 27, 2011, Board Book. Read it and weep.
After the district's presentation, no board director said, “Uh … where is the proof this system works? How can we possibly spend taxpayer money on this data system when we just cut remedial programs, we’ve whined to the public about possibly cutting teachers, programs, or after-school activities, and now we’re talking about cutting instructional staff?”
Dear board directors: Repeat after me: Data does not teach a child – not even snazzy data that slices and dices the students 17 ways from Sunday. Administrators will ignore this new flood of data just as they ignore the flood of student data they already have. Nancy Stowell and her administrators will do what they’re doing now, which is to imply that they’re fabulously successful and it’s just the teachers, parents, students and, well, the entire community that are flawed.
After viewing the district presentation for the data system, you can scroll down in that same July 27, 2011, Board Book to the budget presentation. See how the district also plans to set aside a few million dollars for an (untested, unfunded, unproved, unfinished) nationalized K-8 math curriculum (AKA the Common Core initiatives). The district isn’t telling you – but I know – that the federal government has indicated plans to have nationalized standards, tests, and curricula in ALL subjects. Nationalized science standards already are in the works. District expenditures for this federal plan will be massive and ongoing. The time to say no is now. But our district administrators support it. The board so far has supported it. Deana’s comments indicate that she supports it. Sally Fullmer, however, does not support it.
Do you see that the trend is to push for ever-more money for non-academic expenditures? Deana Brower says the district needs more money and that the superintendent’s salary is not excessive. Sally Fullmer says the Spokane superintendent's salary is excessive but that the larger issue is: Is she getting the job done?
We need someone who will question the district and advocate for the people. I believe that Sally Fullmer "gets it," and I believe she will hold the district accountable. Please vote for Sally and give her a chance to advocate for you.
Please note: The information in this post is copyrighted. The proper citation is:
Rogers, L. (July 2011). "District wants data system and more money. Taxpayers want academics and accountability. Vote for Sally." Retrieved (date) from the Betrayed Web site: http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailing.blogspot.com/
Thursday, July 21, 2011
Sally Fullmer best choice for Spokane school board
[Edited August 8]
By Laurie H. Rogers
In the Aug. 16 primary election, Spokane voters will choose two candidates out of five possible replacements for outgoing school board director Garret Daggett. I interviewed all six original candidates and gave them two surveys to fill out. I interviewed four for KRTW radio, and listened to four at the League of Women Voters forum and in other settings. In this post, I sum up my findings.
This is a critical election, folks. Please vote in the Aug. 16 primary. Encourage others to vote. We must send two good candidates through to the general election. Based on everything the board candidates have written, and everything I’ve heard them say, my first choice for a replacement for Garret Daggett is Sally Fullmer.
In Spokane Public Schools, we clearly need a change of direction. Our students suffer low pass rates on “basic-skills” state tests, low levels of skills in math and grammar, and high dropout rates. The district has high numbers of transfers, dropping full-time enrollment, and a lack of transparency, or even honesty, about the exploding district budget. Many families have left because of the curriculum. Our graduates suffer unacceptably high remedial rates in college in mathematics and English; nearly half will fail their remedial math classes or withdraw early.
District administrators have an unfortunate tendency to blame teachers, parents, students, and poverty for all problems, as they negotiate themselves into pay raises and are praised by board directors for fake improvements. A change in the school board is a must-do. We desperately need board directors who will question, dissent, and refuse to “go along to get along,” who will hold our well-paid administrators accountable, and stand up for the students’ and taxpayers’ best interests – not just when it’s convenient, but every time.
When I began these interviews, the only candidate I’d met was Paul Lecoq. One candidate repeatedly suggested to me that I’d already made up my mind, but that isn’t so. I didn’t settle on a candidate until I’d met all of them, and I met the last one July 16. My support was open to all candidates; it really was theirs to lose.
My first interviewee was Deana Brower. She ran for the school board in 2009, losing in the primary. Deana told me people talk about the curriculum too much, that people should focus on philosophy instead. She said schools aren’t “social services,” yet her idea for fixing the math problem rested on having better teachers, fixing (unfixable) social problems, and allowing the district to build its own math standards.
But Washington State already has good math standards, upgraded in 2008 to include the long-lost standard algorithms and procedural proficiency. Spokane administrators decided to build their own standards, which they call “Power Standards.” And who in this district is qualified to do that? Deana supports these Power Standards, saying they’re “aligned” with the state standards. But if the two sets of standards are the same, why did the district waste taxpayer money building new ones? And if the two sets of standards are different, then what’s different? Spokane’s current administrators have worked diligently for more than a decade to remove standard algorithms and procedural proficiency from Spokane’s math program.
In the League of Women Voters forum, Deana made unsubstantiated attacks on other board candidates (the only candidate to do so), and she spent much of her talking time defending the school district – to the point where it seemed as though she were a district employee, defending her decisions. If you doubt my impression, please watch the LofWV video.
[Updated July 27: Deana sounds like an administrator -- one who is completely supportive of the district. I saw this the first time I spoke with her, on June 9 at the Spokane Republican Women's luncheon, again during my initial interview with her, again at the LoWV forum, and then again July 26, during the Greater Spokane, Inc. forum. It doesn't sound to me like she intends to hold administrators accountable for their policies, curriculum choices, or student outcomes.]
Deana’s answers to the Where’s the Math? questionnaire and to my longer questionnaire were carefully worded, but they didn’t indicate a real understanding of the root of the math problem. After reviewing her answers, the executive committee of Where’s the Math? decided against approving Deana Brower as a board candidate.
Deana says she could support the district’s adoption of the (unfunded, untested) federal Common Core initiatives. Interestingly, she said she isn’t supportive of federal control over standards, tests and curriculum, which shows her ignorance of what the Common Core initiatives are about. Deana says the school district isn’t properly funded (even though the district budget has grown by more than $60 million since 2002 while student enrollment has dropped by thousands of students). When I interviewed Deana for KRTW radio (which broadcasts to a more conservative audience), she told listeners a more conservative story. I don’t buy it, and here’s why.
Deana received teachers union support months before the campaign filing period had begun. Deana tells conservatives that the union knows her stance and supports her as being the best candidate they have. How could the union have known that, way back in the spring? The union’s support is interesting, considering Deana’s stance that better teachers are the main solution to the math problem.
The teachers union sent Deana to a “joint SEA/WEA program created specifically to train school board candidates.” The union says, “This program was provided to Deana and several other candidates from around the state in an effort to encourage people with education experience to run for school board. The training was developed by WEA in conjunction with two political consultants, Wellstone Action and Progressive Majority.”
This training was NOT provided to other board candidates in Spokane, even to those “with education experience.” Regardless of your political leanings, please read up on Wellstone Action and Progressive Majority. I read their mission, goals, philosophy, and approach to elections with growing alarm. They are all about supporting a progressive political leaning. That Deana Brower and the union would associate with these groups, much less use them and be used by them to help sway a supposedly nonpartisan campaign, speaks volumes about both. [Updated July 29: The Progressive Voters Guide also has chosen Deana Brower as their progressive candidate.]
Regardless of whether you're a conservative voter or a liberal one, you should know that Deana Brower tends to support the status quo. If you're looking for a change in the district, I doubt you will see it with her, except, perhaps, in how much more that lack of change will cost you as a taxpayer.
Deana has teaching experience (in California) and children in the Spokane school district. Deana was involved in the discussion over the placement of Jefferson Elementary School.
Sally is a piano teacher, active in her community, in the neighborhood, and also was involved in the discussion over the placement of Jefferson Elementary School.
Sally is an active questioner. I’ve seen her at more community education-related events over the last few weeks than any other candidate, where she has met with and listened to the public. She also spoke at the League of Women Voters forum, arguing for transparency and accountability. She appears to understand the root of the math problem. Where’s the Math? has approved Sally for her answers to the WTM math questionnaire. One executive committee member for WTM said Sally’s answers sound like something any of us math advocates could have written. I agree with his assessment. This means that supporters of the district’s loopy approach to math likely will not support Sally. The teachers union is not supporting Sally. However, parents who are trying to figure out why their smart children are failing math, and parents whose children are getting As in math and then testing into arithmetic in college, likely will see Sally as a strong ally.
Sally also provided answers to my longer questionnaire. She is not supportive of federal control over standards, tests or curriculum, nor does she support the untested, unfunded federal Common Core initiatives. She takes the problem of the math materials seriously and said that, to fix the math problem, “Good curriculum must be in place.” The adoption of Holt Mathematics should not be delayed just because the district wants to adopt the “unproven nationalized curricula,” she said. Sally believes in more academic freedom for teachers and more accountability for administrative decision-making. Students should be allowed to practice skills to mastery, she said, and calculator use should not take the place of math skills. She said, and I agree: “Significant results should be the norm in school!”
[Edited August 8: Sally has continued to advocate for accountability, transparency, student academics, and fiscal restraint. She said she intends to keep the public informed about board decisions, and she's willing to be the lone voice against policy and decisions that are counterproductive to student learning. This shows me that she -- more than any other candidate -- understands her role as a board director, which is to be accountable to the people.]
Sally has children in the district. She has had to work with her own children in academics to offset gaps in their education. Her Web site is located at http://www.seewhatsallysays.com/.
“After listening and speaking to the other candidates extensively, paying close attention to the forums, and much consideration, I have decided to drop out of the race for Spokane Schools (District 81) as of now. I will support Sally Fullmer. Since I am convinced that she is fully committed to improving the quality of education in Spokane, I urge Spokane voters to vote for Sally Fullmer. She deserves the support of Spokane citizens in her race for position 5 of the school board. My supporters can be assured that her objectives are compatible with mine. "My motivation for running was to bring solid math, English and science curricula to the schools and to set objective performance standards to assure that graduates are prepared with adequate skills. We owe it to our kids to develop their work ethic and study skills. I am satisfied that Sally can do the job. It’s more important to me that a competent person sits on the board than for that person to be me. That is why I am redirecting my energies to supporting Sally Fullmer.
"Robert Griffing also shares many of my goals, and would make an excellent board member. However, I see that Sally Fullmer’s determination not to let another three years of students suffer from bad practices, her commitment to excellence, that she will insist on competence, that we agree on the need for objective criteria for success, are more in line with what I stand for. I’m convinced that Sally Fullmer is the best candidate.”
Bob’s background includes instruction in teaching, history and theology. He works with Fairchild Air Force base in providing support to the airmen.
Bob answered the Where’s the Math? questionnaire, and his answers earned him WTM approval as a board candidate. He is still working on answering my longer questionnaire. I have seen him at a few community functions around town, and also at the League of Women Voters forum, where he argued for better accountability and a renewed focus on the district’s main purpose, which is to produce well-educated students. He advocates strengthening board leadership, sharpening the budget so that expenditures are narrowed to what matters to academics, and decentralizing the decision-making so that teachers have more academic freedom.
[Edited August 7: I don’t care for Bob’s idea of giving the superintendent three years to solve academic problems. The superintendent would be delighted, no doubt, to earn $222,000 per year for three more years. But three years in a child’s life is an academic lifetime. The children need improvement now, and now is possible. Nancy Stowell has been with this district for decades. Under her four-year watch as superintendent, the pass rate on the 10th-grade math test fell from just more than 50% to 38.9%. Bob continues to defend the superintendent's salary and has said that repairing the weak curriculum should wait until other problems are solved.
Additionally, Bob has said he will not be the "lone voice in the wilderness," that directors should work for consensus and support decisions. This, to me, is a misunderstanding of the role of the board director. Directors should be accountable to the public, not to Nancy Stowell or to other board directors. Consensus is what we have now. If the new Spokane board director does the right thing on behalf of students and taxpayers, he/she will have to be the lone voice in the wilderness for at least two more years. If Bob isn't willing to be that voice, then he should not be running.]
Bob’s children have attended both public and private settings. His lengthy experience with German schools provides a stark contrast to the Spokane public system, which his children have attended off and on. He and his wife also have chosen to homeschool at times, in order to provide the academics and learning environment they want for their children. His Facebook page is located at: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Griffing-for-Spokane-School-Board/240286892657129
In our conversation, Larry offered friendly, but contradictory commentary, as when he initially questioned whether children need to learn math, then later said students need to learn the basics. His platform is difficult to determine. He refused to answer the Where’s the Math? questionnaire and also my longer questionnaire. I haven’t seen him at functions or community candidate forums. He has not, to my knowledge, made effort to make his views known to the public.
He offered me a single response to my survey (quoted verbatim): “Looking over the survey, the only portion I would want to respond to are the first parts on the role of the board member. That's because, as I see the role (Vandervert on SkyHigh, and the Policy Governance approach) the board decides what the organization is FOR, and, under close board supervision, the MEANS of achieving are carried-out (sic) by the Superintendent and staff. The CEO or Superintendent is evaluated in (sic) by the board as to their (sic) achieving the results desired. If steady progress is not made, the Superintendent goes. End of story.”
Rod was my last interview. I wanted to speak with him before summing up my impressions of the candidates or offering support to a particular candidate. It took us some time to get to that interview, as Rod is busy with other community activism.
Rod didn’t answer the Where’s the Math? questionnaire, but on July 20, he did send answers to my longer questionnaire. He didn’t appear at the League of Women Voters forum, nor have I seen him at other forums around town. Rod acknowledged that he doesn’t know much about the math issue. In our friendly conversation, Rod approached the issues from the perspective of a teacher, not surprising considering that his wife is a teacher. I’m relieved he answered my questionnaire because it was difficult to follow his conversation. His commentary was heavily anecdotal, and he tended to digress.
Rod's Web site is located at: http://www.voterodroduner.com/index.html
****
After all of these conversations and interviews, my choice for the next board director is Sally Fullmer. Her attitude is one of empathy and understanding of the challenges and trials of students, parents and teachers. She doesn’t rush to defend administrators who built this school district and who refuse to listen to their publics. Sally’s curiosity, clarity and frankness provide her with a unique platform from which to work for positive change. If you want real improvement in this district, and not the pretend improvement the administrators keep giving us, I encourage you to consider voting for Sally Fullmer.
By Laurie H. Rogers
In the Aug. 16 primary election, Spokane voters will choose two candidates out of five possible replacements for outgoing school board director Garret Daggett. I interviewed all six original candidates and gave them two surveys to fill out. I interviewed four for KRTW radio, and listened to four at the League of Women Voters forum and in other settings. In this post, I sum up my findings.
This is a critical election, folks. Please vote in the Aug. 16 primary. Encourage others to vote. We must send two good candidates through to the general election. Based on everything the board candidates have written, and everything I’ve heard them say, my first choice for a replacement for Garret Daggett is Sally Fullmer.
In Spokane Public Schools, we clearly need a change of direction. Our students suffer low pass rates on “basic-skills” state tests, low levels of skills in math and grammar, and high dropout rates. The district has high numbers of transfers, dropping full-time enrollment, and a lack of transparency, or even honesty, about the exploding district budget. Many families have left because of the curriculum. Our graduates suffer unacceptably high remedial rates in college in mathematics and English; nearly half will fail their remedial math classes or withdraw early.
District administrators have an unfortunate tendency to blame teachers, parents, students, and poverty for all problems, as they negotiate themselves into pay raises and are praised by board directors for fake improvements. A change in the school board is a must-do. We desperately need board directors who will question, dissent, and refuse to “go along to get along,” who will hold our well-paid administrators accountable, and stand up for the students’ and taxpayers’ best interests – not just when it’s convenient, but every time.
When I began these interviews, the only candidate I’d met was Paul Lecoq. One candidate repeatedly suggested to me that I’d already made up my mind, but that isn’t so. I didn’t settle on a candidate until I’d met all of them, and I met the last one July 16. My support was open to all candidates; it really was theirs to lose.
Deana Brower
My first interviewee was Deana Brower. She ran for the school board in 2009, losing in the primary. Deana told me people talk about the curriculum too much, that people should focus on philosophy instead. She said schools aren’t “social services,” yet her idea for fixing the math problem rested on having better teachers, fixing (unfixable) social problems, and allowing the district to build its own math standards.
But Washington State already has good math standards, upgraded in 2008 to include the long-lost standard algorithms and procedural proficiency. Spokane administrators decided to build their own standards, which they call “Power Standards.” And who in this district is qualified to do that? Deana supports these Power Standards, saying they’re “aligned” with the state standards. But if the two sets of standards are the same, why did the district waste taxpayer money building new ones? And if the two sets of standards are different, then what’s different? Spokane’s current administrators have worked diligently for more than a decade to remove standard algorithms and procedural proficiency from Spokane’s math program.
In the League of Women Voters forum, Deana made unsubstantiated attacks on other board candidates (the only candidate to do so), and she spent much of her talking time defending the school district – to the point where it seemed as though she were a district employee, defending her decisions. If you doubt my impression, please watch the LofWV video.
[Updated July 27: Deana sounds like an administrator -- one who is completely supportive of the district. I saw this the first time I spoke with her, on June 9 at the Spokane Republican Women's luncheon, again during my initial interview with her, again at the LoWV forum, and then again July 26, during the Greater Spokane, Inc. forum. It doesn't sound to me like she intends to hold administrators accountable for their policies, curriculum choices, or student outcomes.]
Deana’s answers to the Where’s the Math? questionnaire and to my longer questionnaire were carefully worded, but they didn’t indicate a real understanding of the root of the math problem. After reviewing her answers, the executive committee of Where’s the Math? decided against approving Deana Brower as a board candidate.
Deana says she could support the district’s adoption of the (unfunded, untested) federal Common Core initiatives. Interestingly, she said she isn’t supportive of federal control over standards, tests and curriculum, which shows her ignorance of what the Common Core initiatives are about. Deana says the school district isn’t properly funded (even though the district budget has grown by more than $60 million since 2002 while student enrollment has dropped by thousands of students). When I interviewed Deana for KRTW radio (which broadcasts to a more conservative audience), she told listeners a more conservative story. I don’t buy it, and here’s why.
Deana received teachers union support months before the campaign filing period had begun. Deana tells conservatives that the union knows her stance and supports her as being the best candidate they have. How could the union have known that, way back in the spring? The union’s support is interesting, considering Deana’s stance that better teachers are the main solution to the math problem.
The teachers union sent Deana to a “joint SEA/WEA program created specifically to train school board candidates.” The union says, “This program was provided to Deana and several other candidates from around the state in an effort to encourage people with education experience to run for school board. The training was developed by WEA in conjunction with two political consultants, Wellstone Action and Progressive Majority.”
This training was NOT provided to other board candidates in Spokane, even to those “with education experience.” Regardless of your political leanings, please read up on Wellstone Action and Progressive Majority. I read their mission, goals, philosophy, and approach to elections with growing alarm. They are all about supporting a progressive political leaning. That Deana Brower and the union would associate with these groups, much less use them and be used by them to help sway a supposedly nonpartisan campaign, speaks volumes about both. [Updated July 29: The Progressive Voters Guide also has chosen Deana Brower as their progressive candidate.]
Regardless of whether you're a conservative voter or a liberal one, you should know that Deana Brower tends to support the status quo. If you're looking for a change in the district, I doubt you will see it with her, except, perhaps, in how much more that lack of change will cost you as a taxpayer.
Deana has teaching experience (in California) and children in the Spokane school district. Deana was involved in the discussion over the placement of Jefferson Elementary School.
Sally Fullmer
Sally is a piano teacher, active in her community, in the neighborhood, and also was involved in the discussion over the placement of Jefferson Elementary School.
Sally is an active questioner. I’ve seen her at more community education-related events over the last few weeks than any other candidate, where she has met with and listened to the public. She also spoke at the League of Women Voters forum, arguing for transparency and accountability. She appears to understand the root of the math problem. Where’s the Math? has approved Sally for her answers to the WTM math questionnaire. One executive committee member for WTM said Sally’s answers sound like something any of us math advocates could have written. I agree with his assessment. This means that supporters of the district’s loopy approach to math likely will not support Sally. The teachers union is not supporting Sally. However, parents who are trying to figure out why their smart children are failing math, and parents whose children are getting As in math and then testing into arithmetic in college, likely will see Sally as a strong ally.
Sally also provided answers to my longer questionnaire. She is not supportive of federal control over standards, tests or curriculum, nor does she support the untested, unfunded federal Common Core initiatives. She takes the problem of the math materials seriously and said that, to fix the math problem, “Good curriculum must be in place.” The adoption of Holt Mathematics should not be delayed just because the district wants to adopt the “unproven nationalized curricula,” she said. Sally believes in more academic freedom for teachers and more accountability for administrative decision-making. Students should be allowed to practice skills to mastery, she said, and calculator use should not take the place of math skills. She said, and I agree: “Significant results should be the norm in school!”
[Edited August 8: Sally has continued to advocate for accountability, transparency, student academics, and fiscal restraint. She said she intends to keep the public informed about board decisions, and she's willing to be the lone voice against policy and decisions that are counterproductive to student learning. This shows me that she -- more than any other candidate -- understands her role as a board director, which is to be accountable to the people.]
Sally has children in the district. She has had to work with her own children in academics to offset gaps in their education. Her Web site is located at http://www.seewhatsallysays.com/.
Paul Lecoq
Paul Lecoq teaches engineering at Gonzaga University. He decided to run because a change in the school board is desperately needed. I respect and empathize with a person’s willingness to step up on behalf of the community when it isn’t a personal ambition. Paul was approved by Where’s the Math? for his answers to the WTM questionnaire; he filled out my questionnaire; and he spoke at the League of Women Voters forum. On July 21, Paul pulled out of the race, throwing his support behind Sally. [Updated July 27: In its roundup of the board candidates, The Spokesman-Review declined to print Paul's statement, or mention Paul's endorsement of Sally Fullmer.] This is Paul Lecoq's statement:"Robert Griffing also shares many of my goals, and would make an excellent board member. However, I see that Sally Fullmer’s determination not to let another three years of students suffer from bad practices, her commitment to excellence, that she will insist on competence, that we agree on the need for objective criteria for success, are more in line with what I stand for. I’m convinced that Sally Fullmer is the best candidate.”
Robert (Bob) Griffing
Bob’s background includes instruction in teaching, history and theology. He works with Fairchild Air Force base in providing support to the airmen.
Bob answered the Where’s the Math? questionnaire, and his answers earned him WTM approval as a board candidate. He is still working on answering my longer questionnaire. I have seen him at a few community functions around town, and also at the League of Women Voters forum, where he argued for better accountability and a renewed focus on the district’s main purpose, which is to produce well-educated students. He advocates strengthening board leadership, sharpening the budget so that expenditures are narrowed to what matters to academics, and decentralizing the decision-making so that teachers have more academic freedom.
[Edited August 7: I don’t care for Bob’s idea of giving the superintendent three years to solve academic problems. The superintendent would be delighted, no doubt, to earn $222,000 per year for three more years. But three years in a child’s life is an academic lifetime. The children need improvement now, and now is possible. Nancy Stowell has been with this district for decades. Under her four-year watch as superintendent, the pass rate on the 10th-grade math test fell from just more than 50% to 38.9%. Bob continues to defend the superintendent's salary and has said that repairing the weak curriculum should wait until other problems are solved.
Additionally, Bob has said he will not be the "lone voice in the wilderness," that directors should work for consensus and support decisions. This, to me, is a misunderstanding of the role of the board director. Directors should be accountable to the public, not to Nancy Stowell or to other board directors. Consensus is what we have now. If the new Spokane board director does the right thing on behalf of students and taxpayers, he/she will have to be the lone voice in the wilderness for at least two more years. If Bob isn't willing to be that voice, then he should not be running.]
Bob’s children have attended both public and private settings. His lengthy experience with German schools provides a stark contrast to the Spokane public system, which his children have attended off and on. He and his wife also have chosen to homeschool at times, in order to provide the academics and learning environment they want for their children. His Facebook page is located at: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Griffing-for-Spokane-School-Board/240286892657129
Larry Vandervert
In our conversation, Larry offered friendly, but contradictory commentary, as when he initially questioned whether children need to learn math, then later said students need to learn the basics. His platform is difficult to determine. He refused to answer the Where’s the Math? questionnaire and also my longer questionnaire. I haven’t seen him at functions or community candidate forums. He has not, to my knowledge, made effort to make his views known to the public.
He offered me a single response to my survey (quoted verbatim): “Looking over the survey, the only portion I would want to respond to are the first parts on the role of the board member. That's because, as I see the role (Vandervert on SkyHigh, and the Policy Governance approach) the board decides what the organization is FOR, and, under close board supervision, the MEANS of achieving are carried-out (sic) by the Superintendent and staff. The CEO or Superintendent is evaluated in (sic) by the board as to their (sic) achieving the results desired. If steady progress is not made, the Superintendent goes. End of story.”
Rod Roduner
Rod was my last interview. I wanted to speak with him before summing up my impressions of the candidates or offering support to a particular candidate. It took us some time to get to that interview, as Rod is busy with other community activism.
Rod didn’t answer the Where’s the Math? questionnaire, but on July 20, he did send answers to my longer questionnaire. He didn’t appear at the League of Women Voters forum, nor have I seen him at other forums around town. Rod acknowledged that he doesn’t know much about the math issue. In our friendly conversation, Rod approached the issues from the perspective of a teacher, not surprising considering that his wife is a teacher. I’m relieved he answered my questionnaire because it was difficult to follow his conversation. His commentary was heavily anecdotal, and he tended to digress.
Rod's Web site is located at: http://www.voterodroduner.com/index.html
****
After all of these conversations and interviews, my choice for the next board director is Sally Fullmer. Her attitude is one of empathy and understanding of the challenges and trials of students, parents and teachers. She doesn’t rush to defend administrators who built this school district and who refuse to listen to their publics. Sally’s curiosity, clarity and frankness provide her with a unique platform from which to work for positive change. If you want real improvement in this district, and not the pretend improvement the administrators keep giving us, I encourage you to consider voting for Sally Fullmer.
Saturday, July 16, 2011
The Lake Wobegon Effect? Or deceit by omission?
[Spokane friends: Ask yourself why you don't see ANY of this questioning in local newspapers.]
By Laurie H. Rogers
In Garrison Keillor’s fictional Lake Wobegon, “all of the women are strong, all of the men are good looking, and all the children are above average.” Keillor’s famous phrase encapsulates the cognitive bias known as “illusory superiority” – a fancy name for the natural tendency we all have to overstate our achievements and positive qualities as compared against others. Because Keillor articulated this bias so well, “illusory superiority” is often called the Lake Wobegon Effect.
The term popped into my head last week while reading various press releases and news articles about Spokane Public Schools. In Spokane, apparently there is no bad news, everyone is always doing better, scores are always going up, and management is always excellent.
(Sarcasm alert.) Administrators are especially remarkable when you consider the difficult job they have of working with the poor, the weak, the incapable, the unknowledgeable, the ungrateful, the uneducated, the stupid, the antagonistic, and the misguided. The consistent gist of their message is, “If only everybody else would carry THEIR weight, you’d see just how positively brilliant we are.” (End sarcasm.)
Hey, here's some fun with acronyms: Administrators in Spokane Public Schools are GNOMES, hindered (so they say) by IT, UP and US.
Spokane’s high ranking in the Washington Post survey is due to the higher number of AP exams. You can see that, numerically, more tests are being passed, but also that the percentage passing has dropped precipitously. Many more tests also are being failed. Administrators and board directors have brushed this failing off as being immaterial. It is not immaterial to the students who failed.
Additionally, the average grade on AP exams has dropped below a “3,” the point at which students can obtain college credit at state schools. (Gonzaga and Whitworth give credit for AP math classes only if students receive a score of “4” or “5” on the AP exam.)
It’s no surprise, therefore, that high school graduates are testing into remedial math in college. In 2009–2010, according to data from Spokane Community Colleges (SCC and SFCC):
“Our mission is to develop the skills and talents of all students through rigorous learning experiences, supportive relationships, and relevant real-life applications.” (Source: District brochure of "fast facts.")
Please note: The information in this post is copyrighted. The proper citation is
Rogers, L. (July 2011). "The Lake Wobegon Effect? Or deceit by omission?" Retrieved (date) from the Betrayed Web site: http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailing.blogspot.com/
This article also was published July 27, 2011, on the EducationNews Web site at: http://www.educationnews.org/ed_reports/159100.html
By Laurie H. Rogers
In Garrison Keillor’s fictional Lake Wobegon, “all of the women are strong, all of the men are good looking, and all the children are above average.” Keillor’s famous phrase encapsulates the cognitive bias known as “illusory superiority” – a fancy name for the natural tendency we all have to overstate our achievements and positive qualities as compared against others. Because Keillor articulated this bias so well, “illusory superiority” is often called the Lake Wobegon Effect.
The term popped into my head last week while reading various press releases and news articles about Spokane Public Schools. In Spokane, apparently there is no bad news, everyone is always doing better, scores are always going up, and management is always excellent.
(Sarcasm alert.) Administrators are especially remarkable when you consider the difficult job they have of working with the poor, the weak, the incapable, the unknowledgeable, the ungrateful, the uneducated, the stupid, the antagonistic, and the misguided. The consistent gist of their message is, “If only everybody else would carry THEIR weight, you’d see just how positively brilliant we are.” (End sarcasm.)
Hey, here's some fun with acronyms: Administrators in Spokane Public Schools are GNOMES, hindered (so they say) by IT, UP and US.
- GNOME: Good News Only; Management Excellent.
- IT: Ineffective Teachers
- UP: Uninvolved Parents
- US: Unmotivated Students
The GNOMES celebrate:
“North Central, Lewis and Clark, Ferris and Rogers were named to the 2011 Washington Post top high schools list for the number of students taking AP tests. Only one other Spokane County school made the list.” (Source: “Points of Pride.”)
Laurie says: About the Washington Post ranking
The Washington Post survey is based on how many students take AP tests. It isn’t based on how many pass the classes or how many pass the tests. Therefore, the more students a district shoves into AP classes (ready or not), the higher its Washington Post ranking – even if every student ultimately flunks the tests. Directors and administrators have said that passing the AP test isn’t as important as being in an AP class – that “students learn just by being there.”
The GNOMES celebrate:
More students are college and career ready, as evidenced by the increased number of AP Placement exams (Source: The superintendent’s June Rotary Club presentation.)The data say: About Spokane’s AP Classes
| 1992 | 2000 | 2008 | 2010 | |
| Number of students | 193 | 368 | 1093 | 1208 |
| Number of exams | 271 | 636 | 2028 | 2270 |
| Number of course areas | 13 | 15 | 27 | 27 |
| Number of exams passed | 198 | 515 | 1099 | 1251 |
| Percent passing | 73% | 81% | 54% | 55% |
| Percent failing | 27% | 19% | 46% | 45% |
| Average Grade | 3.18 | 3.45 | 2.72 | 2.69 |
Spokane’s high ranking in the Washington Post survey is due to the higher number of AP exams. You can see that, numerically, more tests are being passed, but also that the percentage passing has dropped precipitously. Many more tests also are being failed. Administrators and board directors have brushed this failing off as being immaterial. It is not immaterial to the students who failed.
Additionally, the average grade on AP exams has dropped below a “3,” the point at which students can obtain college credit at state schools. (Gonzaga and Whitworth give credit for AP math classes only if students receive a score of “4” or “5” on the AP exam.)
The GNOMES celebrate:
“A higher percentage of SPS students go to college directly after high school than in the state.” (Source: District publication “Points of Pride.”
The data say: About college and career readiness
The 2010 10th-grade state math test (the HSPE) was a low-level, basic skills math test. Students needed just 56.9% to pass and to be considered by the state as “proficient” on the exam. The pass rates in 2010 for Spokane’s high schools looked like this: Ferris: 54%, Lewis and Clark: 54.2%, North Central, 27.1%, and Shadle: 44.4%.It’s no surprise, therefore, that high school graduates are testing into remedial math in college. In 2009–2010, according to data from Spokane Community Colleges (SCC and SFCC):
- Of all recent high school graduates enrolling in these two colleges, 87.3 percent took remedial math classes. Most tested into elementary algebra or below.
- 43.9 percent of those 1,112 remedial students withdrew early from their remedial classes or failed to achieve a 2.0 or better. The rates hold true over five years.
- Of recent graduates from six high schools in Spokane Public Schools, the remediation rate at SCC and SFCC was 86.8%. Three SPS high schools had a math remediation rate at SCC of 100 percent; the other three ranged from 91.9% to 97% at SCC.
The GNOMES celebrate:
In 2009, Spokane Public Schools scored 106.9 on Education Week’s “Cumulative Promotion Index.” In contrast, Seattle is at 78.3, Tacoma is at 69.3, Kent is at 104.1, and Everett is at 74.7. (Source: District presentation on the Superintendent’s Work Plan.)
Laurie says: About Education Week’s Cumulative Promotion Index
According to Education Week, “a score of 100 points on this index indicates that the district's graduation rate is exactly as would be expected, based on its size, student composition, and other characteristics. Districts with scores greater than 100 points are outperforming expectations.”
This index is based on “expectations,” not on an academic standard. If our expectation is zero, and the district achieves at a level of .0001, then it will achieve above 100 on the index.
And, whose expectations are these? My expectation is that Spokane Public Schools prepares the vast majority of its students academically for postsecondary life – for college, a career, a trade, to join the military, to begin a business … And the district is NOT meeting my expectation.
This index is based on “expectations,” not on an academic standard. If our expectation is zero, and the district achieves at a level of .0001, then it will achieve above 100 on the index.
And, whose expectations are these? My expectation is that Spokane Public Schools prepares the vast majority of its students academically for postsecondary life – for college, a career, a trade, to join the military, to begin a business … And the district is NOT meeting my expectation.
The GNOMES celebrate:
Graduation rates are “improving.” (Source: The superintendent’s June Rotary Club presentation.)
About Spokane’s graduation rates
How much of the “increase” was because of actual academic improvement? The district tracked down some students and removed them from the most recent total, causing the most recent graduation rate to go up. However, previous years' numbers were not recounted. It’s statistically incorrect to compare non-reworked numbers with reworked numbers.
Additionally, the “improved” graduation rate doesn’t indicate whether the students were qualified to begin college or a trade when they left high school. As noted, indications are that most were NOT college or career ready.
Additionally, the graduation rates do not indicate how many disgruntled families left the district before graduation. See below for information on that.
The data say: About enrollment
Full-time enrollment in Spokane dropped by about 2,650 from 2003 to May 2010. This is a net figure, not a gross figure, therefore, incoming students offset the total drop.
A Fall 2008 district survey of families who chose to leave the district showed that about 33% left over the curriculum. (Private schools were not included in the survey. Had they been, I suspect this percentage would be higher.) At any rate, top academically-related reasons chosen for leaving:
A Fall 2008 district survey of families who chose to leave the district showed that about 33% left over the curriculum. (Private schools were not included in the survey. Had they been, I suspect this percentage would be higher.) At any rate, top academically-related reasons chosen for leaving:
- 33%: Quality of curriculum does not match your expectations
- 26%: District class sizes too large
- 21%: Desired coursework is not offered in the district
- 19%: Student is not on schedule to graduate
The GNOMES say:
“Our mission is to develop the skills and talents of all students through rigorous learning experiences, supportive relationships, and relevant real-life applications.” (Source: District brochure of "fast facts.")
About the mission of Spokane Public Schools
Spokane Public Schools’ stated mission is useless. Taxpayers do not want to pay $12,000+ per student to develop skills and talents through “learning experiences, supportive relationships and relevant real-life applications.” The district’s mission allows for a heck of a lot of wiggle room, and it holds no one accountable for getting the students ready academically for postsecondary life.
The GNOMES celebrate:
“SPS earned excellence awards in financial reporting seven years in a row and sustains the highest credit ratings possible.” (Source: “Points of Pride.”)
Laurie says: About the district’s finances
Few community members can understand the district budget, as it’s given to the people. Many specific details aren’t available on the district’s Web site.
The levy paid for administrative raises last year, but the people weren’t told that -- not as they were signing on to support the levy, nor afterward, when the levy money was spent in that way. When I asked the district how MUCH of the levy paid for administrative raises, I was told the district “doesn’t break it down that way.”
In this year’s district forums, the people weren’t given budget totals. As they heard the district whine about an alleged budget “cut” since 2002 – they didn’t know that the district budget has actually grown by $60 million since 2002, or that the levy has grown by $23 million since 2002. It’s been an incredibly large money shift, not a budget cut.
Folks, there’s a lot more data out there just like this, but this snippet gives you the gist of the way the district presents outcomes. My conclusion is that Spokane Public Schools does NOT suffer from the Lake Wobegon Effect. What Spokane Public Schools suffers from is ever so much worse than that.
The levy paid for administrative raises last year, but the people weren’t told that -- not as they were signing on to support the levy, nor afterward, when the levy money was spent in that way. When I asked the district how MUCH of the levy paid for administrative raises, I was told the district “doesn’t break it down that way.”
In this year’s district forums, the people weren’t given budget totals. As they heard the district whine about an alleged budget “cut” since 2002 – they didn’t know that the district budget has actually grown by $60 million since 2002, or that the levy has grown by $23 million since 2002. It’s been an incredibly large money shift, not a budget cut.
Folks, there’s a lot more data out there just like this, but this snippet gives you the gist of the way the district presents outcomes. My conclusion is that Spokane Public Schools does NOT suffer from the Lake Wobegon Effect. What Spokane Public Schools suffers from is ever so much worse than that.
Rogers, L. (July 2011). "The Lake Wobegon Effect? Or deceit by omission?" Retrieved (date) from the Betrayed Web site: http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailing.blogspot.com/
This article also was published July 27, 2011, on the EducationNews Web site at: http://www.educationnews.org/ed_reports/159100.html
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Seattle teacher discusses the challenges teachers face
[Note from Laurie Rogers: This is a guest article by a teacher in Seattle Public Schools. It was drawn from two emails he wrote to me in response to reading my book. This teacher asked to remain anonymous out of fear of reprisal for stating his views. For ease of reading, his comments are broken into sections.]
Written by an experienced elementary school teacher, Seattle
Dear Laurie Rogers:
Thanks for writing your book. One of the things that you discuss in your compelling discourse is the low standards that our colleges have had in the subject matter (as opposed to teaching theory, sociology, and psychology) for those who have a desire to become teachers in our public schools.
For the past twenty-two years, I have diligently taught 4th and 5th grade students. For the first eighteen years, I taught math according to the classical mode that you describe in your book. As the reforms took hold, and we were monitored ever more closely, I was forced into using Everyday Math according to a pacing guide set by the district. As you have rightly observed, it is a program that emphasizes coverage and not mastery.
For much of the year, I had 34 students. Of these 34 students, seven had Special Education IEPs and were to be served according to a pull-in model which never quite materialized. I did have a special ed. instructional assistant for 50 minutes a day until she was pulled to serve in a more "needy" classroom. One of my students was mentally retarded and never once scored about the first percentile on the MAP test. Another student started the year almost totally blind and had a personal assistant for two hours out of the day to teach her Braille. Two were removed from their homes by CPS and placed under foster care: one for neglect and the other for domestic violence. Three students were absent for more than 30 days each. I could go on, but I think that you get the picture.
At the beginning of August, I am expected to attend a five-day professional development on teaching math, followed by a five-day professional development on Readers Workshop. The regimen makes me feel like I am being sent to a reeducation camp to learn how to socialize America's youth.
The onslaught of the reform movement is causing teachers, like myself, who are in the twilight of our careers, to ask if it’s worth abandoning the principles that we were taught about good pedagogy, in order to qualify us to become another cog in the reformed collective, or if we should take an early retirement and supplement our meager income working at a much less stressful place.
As a classically trained musician, the concept of mastery is very important to me. There is, also, incidentally, no mastery effectively allowed in the mini-lesson format. In writing, for instance, we are to teach a lesson, and not require the students to put the skill taught to immediate use; they are to "put it in their tool box" for use when they feel that they need it. If I would dare to tell my administrator that is absurd, I would risk an evaluation that would put me on probation.
Your book has already helped me to see part of the bigger picture that I have been missing, and I look forward to reading the rest of it. Please keep up your good work. What we, as teachers can do to stem the tide of reform is very little. I struggle with my conscience over implementing such an inferior form of instruction. In my experience, direct instruction is the most fruitful. The other techniques can be useful when used in moderation by an experienced and skillful instructor, but unless they are closely monitored, easily become a playground for an exchange of ignorance, and in some extreme cases a forum for students to bully other students.
Seattle prides itself in being a data-driven district. The administrators here, however, seem to care about improving student performance by mandating, from on high, according to their pet theories than by listening to the people who should be able, if they are worth their salt, to tell them how and why those statistics were generated in the first place. They might just learn something if they really listened to their teachers.
The case of Celesta is a true horror story. My wife and our two home schooled children were dumbfounded that such a thing could possibly happen. I wonder what kind of tests formed the basis for Celesta's outstanding math grades. One of the most striking aspects of reform math is the huge amount of activity that occurs without much, if any, mastery of the subject taking place.
The ambiguity of the language in the WASL math test, one year prompted a fifth grade student, the son of Vietnamese immigrants, in his responses to question after question to write: "If you mean this, the answer is_____, but if you mean this, the answer is__________, or if you mean this, the answer is________. I marveled at his tenacity and thoroughness. He was, in the end awarded a very high score for his efforts.
These days the MSP is so highly secured that teachers have to sign a statement that they affirm, under penalty of perjury, that they have not violated the rules for administering the assessment, which violation, itself, is now, under law, a misdemeanor. Talk about adding insult to injury. Teachers in our state are forced to implement ineffective instruction, and then are evaluated on the results that are logically obtained from that instruction on the state tests. Finally, if they are caught deviating from the script of the MSP and its rules for administration, they are not only in danger of being run out of the profession, but facing criminal charges as well. I agree that teachers who intentionally cheat to obtain better scores for their students should be disciplined, but I want to know the real purpose for criminalizing them.
What good is all of this voluminous data if it cannot be used to find gaps in a student's math skills; gaps which would have easily been identified and dealt with in every age of human experience before our enlightened era of social promotion?
One of my favorite activities with parents is to discuss their child's work with them. Reform math, by its very nature (of discovery) generally leaves the most influential voices in a child's life sitting in the nosebleed seats, so far away from the action that it is often difficult to discern exactly what is going on.
Is it possible that Celesta really didn't know that she had missed out on key components in her math education? If she was schooled only in the alternate algorithms, she may never have heard the term, long division. Why were not her parents aware that she needed to know her basic facts much better?
I was raised by my parents to believe that my education was ultimately their responsibility. In any parent teacher conference their attitude would be, "What can I do to help my child learn his math, etc. better?" In my experience, many parents feel disrespected and trashed by personnel in their local school districts. It is not unusual for me, therefore, to put the test scores and the statistics to the side during a parent teacher conference and ask permission to speak with them parent to parent, instead, about things that we both want our children to know, and what each of us can do to make it so.
On your list of ways to help children like Celesta, isn't empowering their parents a strategy that works, even if they, themselves don't have the best education in the world, or work three jobs between the two of them to make ends meet? It doesn't take a village to raise a child, it takes a committed parent who isn't sabotaged by the village to raise a child.
The organs of government and government-run schools repeatedly intimidate parents with
I am not sure that the general public quite comprehends that as teachers, we are pledged by our contracts, and by state law, to carry out the lawful directives of our employer. But, as citizens of the United States, we are entitled to speak out on matters of public policy (including education) without fear of retaliation. As citizens, we are even allowed to work to replace those who employ us and join with others to empower new leaders by virtue of our votes.
It is my sense that reform-oriented administrators are not oblivious to this threat, and will do all in their power to stamp it out by relieving us of our jobs.
Why are we continuously being told that certain best practices are research based when it seems that no primary research can be pointed to, that conclusively supports them? So far as I can tell, primary research about the efficacy of “word walls,” writing your “teaching point” on the board, the superiority of “mini-lessons,” “turn and talk,” and “cooperative learning” simply does not exist. A year ago, I asked our school's math coach if she could find the primary research that forms the basis for those so-called high-leverage teaching moves. Several months later she reported back to me that she could not find it.
I was quite enlightened by your discussion of the Delphi Technique and mission creep. I thank you for them. The Seattle Schools used this technique liberally throughout the past decade in its so-called courageous conversations about race. They repeatedly broke us up into discussion groups, and guided our meetings with a list of absurd norms, including "speak your truth." According to the way I was educated, truth is not the property of an individual; it's an absolute. In the end, it became quite obvious that their predetermined conclusion was that Caucasian people are guilty of perpetuating institutionalized racism, and it is our responsibility, as public school teachers, to be outspoken advocates for social justice. Talk about mission creep!
The opening paragraphs of your chapter on the learning environment are priceless. They mirror my beliefs exactly about public education. As a general rule, I believe that it is not my business to undo the values instilled in my students by their parents. I do, however, as a matter of course, listen carefully to parents when they expound on their values. The societal norms and expectations that you refer to that the school has a legitimate role in enforcing are quickly disintegrating before our very eyes. Together with reform math, investigative science, just-right books, and Writers Workshop, this disintegration is seriously jeopardizing our effectiveness in the classroom.
My fear is that a vastly inferior culture of teaching and learning is now supplanting a much superior culture of teaching and learning which preceded it. The proponents even call it a culture which indicates that they know precisely what they are doing. They are redefining our language and our values.
In some of our schools, cultural differences are a fact of life that we have to deal with, and here again, the reformers are failing us. Imagine implementing the mini-lesson format in a class where the mother tongues are Vietnamese, Chinese, Somali, Tagalog, Ilokano, Mexican, Lao and Ethiopian. In fifth grade, many of these students are proficient in neither English, nor in the language their parents speak at home. Turning them loose to solve problems such as finding the area of a triangle through discovery creates a veritable tower of Babel full of misconceptions and frustration.
Children from immigrant families are being sent to school by parents who are expecting them to receive direct instruction like they received in their homeland. Most immigrant parents can't understand why 5th-grade classrooms in this country are full of students who don't meet the standards that have been set as a prerequisite for their entry into that grade level. Most immigrant parents are dismayed that students who are disruptive to the learning process day in and day out receive ineffective consequences from the administration for their behavior.
Our leaders give a lot of lip service to the importance of being culturally literate, but many of them don't seem to know or care what true cultural literacy is outside of some box that contains a few external trappings of a given culture and some superficial generalizations about it. They shamelessly use these people to further their agenda of reform.
There are days I could swear that administrators think that we work in a factory turning out widgets. I have news for them. Human children are not machines. Students can be willful, lazy, and burdened with a multitude of personal problems. Many are nevertheless also highly appreciative of a teacher who stands by them in times of difficulty. Among my most treasured artifacts of the 2010-2011 school year is a handmade card. On the inside is written, “Thank you for believing in me when I didn't want to be successful.” I can't think of an administrator who can begin to understand just how profound those words are.
Please understand that this email represents but a tiny fraction of the torrent of frustrations, challenges, fears, and vexation that I and others like me experience every day as we attempt to fulfill the duties of our chosen profession and provide our families with their daily bread.
Sincerely yours,
(Seattle elementary school teacher)
************
Note from Laurie Rogers: If you would like to submit a guest column on public education, please write to me at wlroge@comcast.net. Please limit columns to not more than 1,000 words. Columns might be edited for length, content or grammar. You may remain anonymous to the public, however I must know who you are. All decisions on guest columns are the sole right and responsibility of Laurie Rogers.
Written by an experienced elementary school teacher, Seattle
Dear Laurie Rogers:
Thanks for writing your book. One of the things that you discuss in your compelling discourse is the low standards that our colleges have had in the subject matter (as opposed to teaching theory, sociology, and psychology) for those who have a desire to become teachers in our public schools.
For the past twenty-two years, I have diligently taught 4th and 5th grade students. For the first eighteen years, I taught math according to the classical mode that you describe in your book. As the reforms took hold, and we were monitored ever more closely, I was forced into using Everyday Math according to a pacing guide set by the district. As you have rightly observed, it is a program that emphasizes coverage and not mastery.
For much of the year, I had 34 students. Of these 34 students, seven had Special Education IEPs and were to be served according to a pull-in model which never quite materialized. I did have a special ed. instructional assistant for 50 minutes a day until she was pulled to serve in a more "needy" classroom. One of my students was mentally retarded and never once scored about the first percentile on the MAP test. Another student started the year almost totally blind and had a personal assistant for two hours out of the day to teach her Braille. Two were removed from their homes by CPS and placed under foster care: one for neglect and the other for domestic violence. Three students were absent for more than 30 days each. I could go on, but I think that you get the picture.
At the beginning of August, I am expected to attend a five-day professional development on teaching math, followed by a five-day professional development on Readers Workshop. The regimen makes me feel like I am being sent to a reeducation camp to learn how to socialize America's youth.
The onslaught of the reform movement is causing teachers, like myself, who are in the twilight of our careers, to ask if it’s worth abandoning the principles that we were taught about good pedagogy, in order to qualify us to become another cog in the reformed collective, or if we should take an early retirement and supplement our meager income working at a much less stressful place.
As a classically trained musician, the concept of mastery is very important to me. There is, also, incidentally, no mastery effectively allowed in the mini-lesson format. In writing, for instance, we are to teach a lesson, and not require the students to put the skill taught to immediate use; they are to "put it in their tool box" for use when they feel that they need it. If I would dare to tell my administrator that is absurd, I would risk an evaluation that would put me on probation.
Your book has already helped me to see part of the bigger picture that I have been missing, and I look forward to reading the rest of it. Please keep up your good work. What we, as teachers can do to stem the tide of reform is very little. I struggle with my conscience over implementing such an inferior form of instruction. In my experience, direct instruction is the most fruitful. The other techniques can be useful when used in moderation by an experienced and skillful instructor, but unless they are closely monitored, easily become a playground for an exchange of ignorance, and in some extreme cases a forum for students to bully other students.
Seattle prides itself in being a data-driven district. The administrators here, however, seem to care about improving student performance by mandating, from on high, according to their pet theories than by listening to the people who should be able, if they are worth their salt, to tell them how and why those statistics were generated in the first place. They might just learn something if they really listened to their teachers.
Unhelpful Testing
The case of Celesta is a true horror story. My wife and our two home schooled children were dumbfounded that such a thing could possibly happen. I wonder what kind of tests formed the basis for Celesta's outstanding math grades. One of the most striking aspects of reform math is the huge amount of activity that occurs without much, if any, mastery of the subject taking place.
The ambiguity of the language in the WASL math test, one year prompted a fifth grade student, the son of Vietnamese immigrants, in his responses to question after question to write: "If you mean this, the answer is_____, but if you mean this, the answer is__________, or if you mean this, the answer is________. I marveled at his tenacity and thoroughness. He was, in the end awarded a very high score for his efforts.
These days the MSP is so highly secured that teachers have to sign a statement that they affirm, under penalty of perjury, that they have not violated the rules for administering the assessment, which violation, itself, is now, under law, a misdemeanor. Talk about adding insult to injury. Teachers in our state are forced to implement ineffective instruction, and then are evaluated on the results that are logically obtained from that instruction on the state tests. Finally, if they are caught deviating from the script of the MSP and its rules for administration, they are not only in danger of being run out of the profession, but facing criminal charges as well. I agree that teachers who intentionally cheat to obtain better scores for their students should be disciplined, but I want to know the real purpose for criminalizing them.
What good is all of this voluminous data if it cannot be used to find gaps in a student's math skills; gaps which would have easily been identified and dealt with in every age of human experience before our enlightened era of social promotion?
Parent Involvement
One of my favorite activities with parents is to discuss their child's work with them. Reform math, by its very nature (of discovery) generally leaves the most influential voices in a child's life sitting in the nosebleed seats, so far away from the action that it is often difficult to discern exactly what is going on.
Is it possible that Celesta really didn't know that she had missed out on key components in her math education? If she was schooled only in the alternate algorithms, she may never have heard the term, long division. Why were not her parents aware that she needed to know her basic facts much better?
I was raised by my parents to believe that my education was ultimately their responsibility. In any parent teacher conference their attitude would be, "What can I do to help my child learn his math, etc. better?" In my experience, many parents feel disrespected and trashed by personnel in their local school districts. It is not unusual for me, therefore, to put the test scores and the statistics to the side during a parent teacher conference and ask permission to speak with them parent to parent, instead, about things that we both want our children to know, and what each of us can do to make it so.
On your list of ways to help children like Celesta, isn't empowering their parents a strategy that works, even if they, themselves don't have the best education in the world, or work three jobs between the two of them to make ends meet? It doesn't take a village to raise a child, it takes a committed parent who isn't sabotaged by the village to raise a child.
The organs of government and government-run schools repeatedly intimidate parents with
- confusing report cards
- pages of standards that analyze the curriculum to death
- reams of test data that are disassociated from concrete examples of their child's performance, and
- fancy constructivist notions of how children learn that blatantly contradict millennia of human experience.
I am not sure that the general public quite comprehends that as teachers, we are pledged by our contracts, and by state law, to carry out the lawful directives of our employer. But, as citizens of the United States, we are entitled to speak out on matters of public policy (including education) without fear of retaliation. As citizens, we are even allowed to work to replace those who employ us and join with others to empower new leaders by virtue of our votes.
It is my sense that reform-oriented administrators are not oblivious to this threat, and will do all in their power to stamp it out by relieving us of our jobs.
So-called “Best Practices” and Mission Creep
Why are we continuously being told that certain best practices are research based when it seems that no primary research can be pointed to, that conclusively supports them? So far as I can tell, primary research about the efficacy of “word walls,” writing your “teaching point” on the board, the superiority of “mini-lessons,” “turn and talk,” and “cooperative learning” simply does not exist. A year ago, I asked our school's math coach if she could find the primary research that forms the basis for those so-called high-leverage teaching moves. Several months later she reported back to me that she could not find it.
I was quite enlightened by your discussion of the Delphi Technique and mission creep. I thank you for them. The Seattle Schools used this technique liberally throughout the past decade in its so-called courageous conversations about race. They repeatedly broke us up into discussion groups, and guided our meetings with a list of absurd norms, including "speak your truth." According to the way I was educated, truth is not the property of an individual; it's an absolute. In the end, it became quite obvious that their predetermined conclusion was that Caucasian people are guilty of perpetuating institutionalized racism, and it is our responsibility, as public school teachers, to be outspoken advocates for social justice. Talk about mission creep!
The opening paragraphs of your chapter on the learning environment are priceless. They mirror my beliefs exactly about public education. As a general rule, I believe that it is not my business to undo the values instilled in my students by their parents. I do, however, as a matter of course, listen carefully to parents when they expound on their values. The societal norms and expectations that you refer to that the school has a legitimate role in enforcing are quickly disintegrating before our very eyes. Together with reform math, investigative science, just-right books, and Writers Workshop, this disintegration is seriously jeopardizing our effectiveness in the classroom.
Culture and Implications of Reform Math
My fear is that a vastly inferior culture of teaching and learning is now supplanting a much superior culture of teaching and learning which preceded it. The proponents even call it a culture which indicates that they know precisely what they are doing. They are redefining our language and our values.
In some of our schools, cultural differences are a fact of life that we have to deal with, and here again, the reformers are failing us. Imagine implementing the mini-lesson format in a class where the mother tongues are Vietnamese, Chinese, Somali, Tagalog, Ilokano, Mexican, Lao and Ethiopian. In fifth grade, many of these students are proficient in neither English, nor in the language their parents speak at home. Turning them loose to solve problems such as finding the area of a triangle through discovery creates a veritable tower of Babel full of misconceptions and frustration.
Children from immigrant families are being sent to school by parents who are expecting them to receive direct instruction like they received in their homeland. Most immigrant parents can't understand why 5th-grade classrooms in this country are full of students who don't meet the standards that have been set as a prerequisite for their entry into that grade level. Most immigrant parents are dismayed that students who are disruptive to the learning process day in and day out receive ineffective consequences from the administration for their behavior.
Our leaders give a lot of lip service to the importance of being culturally literate, but many of them don't seem to know or care what true cultural literacy is outside of some box that contains a few external trappings of a given culture and some superficial generalizations about it. They shamelessly use these people to further their agenda of reform.
There are days I could swear that administrators think that we work in a factory turning out widgets. I have news for them. Human children are not machines. Students can be willful, lazy, and burdened with a multitude of personal problems. Many are nevertheless also highly appreciative of a teacher who stands by them in times of difficulty. Among my most treasured artifacts of the 2010-2011 school year is a handmade card. On the inside is written, “Thank you for believing in me when I didn't want to be successful.” I can't think of an administrator who can begin to understand just how profound those words are.
Please understand that this email represents but a tiny fraction of the torrent of frustrations, challenges, fears, and vexation that I and others like me experience every day as we attempt to fulfill the duties of our chosen profession and provide our families with their daily bread.
Sincerely yours,
(Seattle elementary school teacher)
************
Note from Laurie Rogers: If you would like to submit a guest column on public education, please write to me at wlroge@comcast.net. Please limit columns to not more than 1,000 words. Columns might be edited for length, content or grammar. You may remain anonymous to the public, however I must know who you are. All decisions on guest columns are the sole right and responsibility of Laurie Rogers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
