On May 12, tell school board to vote no to RTTT

By Laurie H. Rogers


(Updated May 30, 2010: see comment at bottom.)

On May 12, at 7 p.m. Spokane Public Schools board directors will vote on whether to support Washington State's Race to the Top application. I'm asking you to attend that board meeting, or call school board directors, and tell them to vote no. Ask others you know to come or to call. Your rights as a citizen, parent, teacher and taxpayer hang in the balance.

Race to the Top represents a de facto federal takeover of public education. Its intent is unconstitutional and banned in 20 USC 3403. This bare fact is not stopping people at federal, state and local levels from enthusiastically pressing for a handover of state rights and responsibilities for public education to the federal government.

At the school board's May 5 work session, Spokane Superintendent Nancy Stowell articulated her reasons for why the school board should vote to support Washington's Race to the Top application. Note that none of these reasons has to do with improving student learning.

Nancy Stowell argues (paraphrased, unless in quote marks):	Laurie Rogers argues:
Almost everyone else is doing it.	1. Not true. Some states, districts, and policy-makers are saying no. Others are hesitating. 2. Maybe those who are saying yes are making a mistake. 3. If everyone said no, it wouldn’t happen.
Race to the Top is coming, so Spokane might as well get some money for it.	1. This is a revolting, embarrassing argument. When a bad thing looms, we should just sit back and get money for it? What does that make us? 2. This is not "their money," "the money," "federal money," or "some money." This is taxpayer money, all of it. And taxpayers should have a say in how it is spent. Once public education is managed at the federal level, this right will be de facto removed, possibly forever.
Spokane would get about $6.4 million over four years.	1. Half of all "grant" money for Race to the Top stays with administrators at the state level. (That's their cut of the take.) So, if the total is $250 million, the state gets $125 million. 2. IF Washington State gets all $250 million dollars it could get, Spokane will get $6.4 million over four years, which is less than $60 per student per year. 3. Much of the $56.82 per student per year will pay for administrative overhead and bureaucracy. How much will go to the classroom? Any?
Most of what's in the RTTT application will be required by the recently passed Senate Bill 6696.	This is a circular argument. SB6696 was expressly designed to set Washington up to apply for RTTT. But SB6696 is not in stone. It can be reversed.
Many educators said "hallelujah" to SB6696 and said it didn't even go far enough. SB6696 takes us forward to doing business very differently from how we've been doing it.	1. And there you have it. I urge you to read SB6696. It was a bad bill that should not have been passed. It is just the beginning of more bad policy. 2. SB6696 shows you exactly why RTTT is all wrong.
Spokane will have "better positioning" to be "part of the reform movement."	What does this even mean? Education is ALWAYS being reformed. How does RTTT help the students learn better?
People will ask whether Spokane is on board.	Tell them Spokane said no to this federal takeover of public education and to another complete waste of billions of taxpayer dollars.
We have 90 days AFTER getting the money to come up with a plan for spending it.	Superintendent Stowell doesn't have a plan now? So, it's get the money, then figure out how to spend it?
The money is earmarked for things required by U.S. Secretary Arne Duncan.	1. Superintendent Stowell acknowledged that there will be "considerable oversight" of RTTT spending and procedure. She has already complained about the punitive nature of NCLB. Constant hovering by the federal government already takes precious time, money and resources away from the classroom. 2. Superintendent Stowell acknowledged that not everything that is required by RTTT will actually be useful for our students. 3. If RTTT is implemented in this state, bureaucrats in Washington, DC, will decide how to spend our money, educate our children, set policy for our state, assess our teachers - perhaps bargain with our teachers - and run our school district. 4. If you think Arne Duncan has all of the answers, remember that he will not be there forever.
Spokane is "desperate" for money. "We're going after every dollar we can."	1. The Department of Education says $658 billion was spent (from all sources) last year on K-12 education. Much of this was poorly spent. It just vanishes, spent on things that have little public accountability and nothing to do with the classroom. 2. Look at the plans for Race to the Top -- at the 50% going to the state, plus another (unknown) percentage for local administration. All of this vs. the pittance that goes to the classroom.
Signing on to the state application doesn't "bind us" to doing anything.	I keep getting told this, by the ED, the governor's office, and state and district superintendents... I don't see anyone offering a plan or conditions for saying no. Don't believe this false reassurance. None of these people will say no.
We can apply for more money under other aspects of the application.	1. Policy will continue to be set by running after money, instead of doing what is best for the children. 2. What is best for the children has to do with what happens in the classroom. Little of the RTTT money is destined to go there.
This is a quick turnaround, so we have to decide now.	1. The deadline for Washington's application is on June 1, the same day as the projected release of the final draft of the national standards ("common core standards"), the adoption of which is required as part of a successful application. 2. Previous drafts of these national standards indicate that they're weaker than our own state standards. 3. No one will have a chance to see or comment on the final draft of the national standards before Washington's application is sent in. 4. Why the big rush? Why are administrators not taking a moment to ask hard questions about this critical shift in policy?
The two successful state applications had huge district sign-on.	This argument is a red herring. It doesn't support any supposed benefits of the application itself.
"Many educators" believe that if we want our children to be able to compete, we need common standards that all states accept. The national standards will bring needed consistency.	1. Having "common" standards isn't what helps children compete. Having GOOD standards that lead to GOOD curricula is what helps them compete. 2. The national standards that are required as a part of RTTT have so far been WEAKER than Washington's state standards.
"The common core standards is a very small part of this."	The national standards are a HUGE part of this. The national standards are already leading to national tests and plans for national curricula. At that point, the federal government will control the K-12 classroom.
This gives us the opportunity to make some changes we've been wanting to make.	There is nothing stopping this district from making changes it wants to make. However, in exchange for a few dollars, it will be forced to make changes it should not be making.
If we say no now, we can't say yes later.	"Buy NOW or miss out" is a red herring. If Spokane says no, it will be harassed to say yes later. There will always be another chance to say yes to this federal takeover. The real question is: If Spokane says yes now, will it ever have an opportunity later to say no?

Many people want Spokane to sign on: President Obama, Secretary Duncan, Governor Chris Gregoire, Superintendent Randy Dorn, various unions (WASA, AWSP, WEA and WSSDA), and Superintendent Stowell. This is some heavy-duty pushing. None of these people have articulated how RTTT money will help students learn better. Why the big rush? Why the heavy coercion? Why are they not asking nor answering hard questions about this critical shift in policy? Why has so much of the federal and state process on RTTT been done away from the public eye?

I am asking you to go to the school board meeting on May 12 and tell the school board to say no to supporting Washington State's Race to the Top application. If you can't go, please write to them or call them individually. This might be the last chance you get.

(Update May 30, 2010: Comment from Laurie Rogers.
On May 12, 2010, The school board voted 3-2, with Dr. Jeff Bierman and President Sue Chapin dissenting, to sign on to Race to the Top. The argumentation for signing on was as weak as the argumentation noted above. Directors didn't answer the concerns from the public - or even concerns from within their own ranks. It was a truly embarrassing display. This school board sold its teachers, parents and students for a nickel it isn't even certain to get. Shameful.)

Please note: The information in this post is copyrighted. The proper citation is: Rogers, L. (May, 2010). "On May 12, tell school board to vote no to RTTT." Retrieved (date) from the Betrayed Web site: http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailing.blogspot.com/

Is Spokane Public Schools a "dropout factory"?

By Laurie H. Rogers


(Updated: May 30, 2010)In 2010, The Spokesman-Review reported that Spokane Public Schools has a 40% dropout rate. If true, that would make the district a "dropout factory," as defined in a 2007 report from Johns Hopkins University that called some schools "drop-out factories" because they had a 40% (or worse) dropout rate.

The Spokesman-Review article didn't quote anyone taking issue with the validity of that figure, so I quoted it at a town hall meeting, and later in a Letter to the Editor. However, the 40% figure for Spokane is incorrect. The actual dropout rate for the cohort of students who were supposed to graduate in 2009 was 28.7%. Part of the confusion lies in the definitions. Who is a “dropout?”

• Students who formally file papers saying they’ve chosen to drop out.
• Students who haven’t been seen for a few months, so it’s assumed they’ve dropped out, but no one knows for certain. Maybe they’re foster kids, they’ve been in jail, they’re living in abusive homes, or their parents are homeless, transient or migrant. They do what they can. They don’t know when or where they’ll be going next.
• Students who graduate with a credential other than a high school diploma (such as a General Education Development (GED) credential).
• Students who need more than 4 years of schooling to complete graduation requirements (also known as “extended graduation rates”).
• Students who left to be homeschooled or to attend a private or alternative school.

In 2008, former Education Sec. Margaret Spellings criticized states’ methods for reporting dropouts, saying the states tended to inflate on-time graduation rates. She said some reported only those students who said officially that they were dropping out, while others marked as “graduated” the students who left the school but promised to get a GED in the future. In April 2008, Sec. Spellings took steps to "ensure that all states use the same formula” to calculate graduation and dropout rates; to make the rates public; and to tie graduation rates to annual targets for the No Child Left Behind Act.

It's important to properly report dropout and graduation rates. Students who don’t graduate are at high risk of having limited futures. Speaking at a May 2007, summit in D.C. called “America’s Silent Epidemic,” Sec. Spellings said, “Today, a quality education is more important than ever and solving our dropout crisis is not just a moral imperative, it's an economic necessity. The United States has the most severe income gap between high school graduates and dropouts in the world.” In April 2008, she reiterated the message: “Over their lifetimes, dropouts from the class of 2007 alone will cost our nation more than 300 billion dollars in lost wages, lost taxes and lost productivity. Increasing graduation rates by just five percent, for male students alone, would save us nearly eight billion dollars each year in crime-related costs."

I note this difficulty in defining “dropout” as a way of showing support for administrators and journalists who struggle to put together relevant and consistent data that are based on fine statistical distinctions and the vagaries of human beings. After the Spokane superintendent and a board member told me the 40% figure is incorrect, I called the state education agency (OSPI) twice to ask for clarification of the data, and two helpful souls carefully led me through the numbers. Besides the issue of how to define a "dropout," there is the need to assign static numbers to mobile human beings. Additionally, the desire for clarity requires multiple representations of the data. It’s easy to misunderstand.

For the class of 2007/2008, Spokane’s on-time graduation rate was just over 60%. It had an estimated 29.3% dropout rate for all of the students who were supposed to graduate in 2008 (the cohort). The district's "extended" graduation rate was just 61.9%, meaning that once students fell behind, they tended to stay behind for good. The remaining 9.2% of students in that particular “cohort” were “continuing,” as in continuing to work on their diploma.

For the class of 2008/2009, Spokane's on-time graduation rate was 62.1%. It had an estimated cohort dropout rate of 28.7%, and an extended graduation rate of 65% for all students who were supposed to graduate in 2009.

In Washington State, graduation and dropout rates are reported on the OSPI Web site at this address: http://www.k12.wa.us/

• Click on the link (at the top) for "Research and Reports."
• Choose "School Report Card."
• In the dropdown menu, choose your school district. (You also can define further, by school.) The resulting screen gives you data for your school district.
• At the very bottom of the Report Card page, click on the tiny link for "Data Files." The resulting screen gives you "Demographic Data Downloads," "WASL Data Downloads," and "AYP Data Downloads."
• Click on "Graduation Rates By District." (It's an Excel file.) You will see several categories for student data that are pertinent to graduation for all school districts in Washington State.

I looked at Data Files for 2007/2008 for Seattle, Spokane, Tacoma and Vancouver.

• The estimated cohort dropout rates for the four districts for 2007-2008 are: Seattle: 32.1%; Spokane: 29.3%; Tacoma: 24.8%; Vancouver: 22.4%.
• Spokane and Seattle also have a serious dropout problem in 7th and 8th grades. Spokane lost more than 5% of its middle-school students for that cohort, nearly 250 students. The dropout problem dropped off slightly in 9th and 10th grade, then roared back to life in 11th and 12th grades.
• Spokane's problems continued throughout high school. At the start of 10th grade, 97.5% of students in that cohort were still on time to graduate. At the beginning of 11th grade, that figure had dropped to 93%. From there, the drops were dramatic. At the start of 12th grade, just 83.3% were on time. At the end of 12th grade, just 70.7% were on time. The cohort ended with just 60.3% actually graduating on time.

Is Spokane a "dropout factory"? It depends on your definition. Even with a 28.7% cohort dropout rate, the district obviously has a serious dropout problem. I have wondered what the district is doing about it, and I asked Superintendent Nancy Stowell the question at a February town hall meeting. She said the reported dropout figure was wrong (which it was), then she blamed the dropout issue on more rigorous learning standards. (That was odd.) In March, when Dr. Stowell clarified the dropout figures for me, she said, "The dropout rate at 28.7 is still much too high so we aren't making any excuses, just looking for programs that will work to keep our students on track to graduate and then making whatever technical fix we can to ensure that the numbers we report to the state are correct."

Three ideas that would help "keep students on track" would be: 1) Give the teachers and students better curricula that contain more content, 2) Allow the teachers to actually teach the students instead of forcing the students to teach themselves and each other, and 3) Remove from the school day 90% of the activities that distract from academic learning (such as the constant school assemblies, computer and calculator classes, games, parties and character classes). These ideas would improve so much yet cost so little.

I keep saying all of this to administrators, and I might as well be talking to the wind.

Meanwhile, the "Children's Investment Fund" (CIF) is a new tax initiative purportedly designed to help with the dropout rate. According to a Feb. 21, 2010, Spokesman-Review article, the fund would pay for "early childhood learning, abuse and neglect prevention and treatment programs, mentoring programs and before- and after-school activities." These CIF programs supposedly could improve the dropout rate by "up to 20 percentage points." There was no support whatsoever for this fantastical claim, and none of the CIF programs was connected in any clear way to dropout rates.

The CIF is just another grab for money from taxpayers' pockets to pay for nebulous, unproved, supposedly well-intended programs. Like all nebulous programs before them, they will be a bottomless pit, a black hole that sucks in taxpayer money and emits just 40-60% of available light. There are better, more effective solutions available that don't require additional money from you.

Dr. Lorna Spear, Spokane's Executive Director of Teaching and Learning, is conducting a study of middle schools. I'm told this is partly to address the dropout problem in the middle schools, but I can't say for sure. I've been asking questions about this study since Feb. 25. Initially, Dr. Spear was too busy to answer my email. Someone else directed me to the school board minutes, which didn't explain the study. Finally, after more queries from me, Dr. Spear replied on April 26 with exactly this: "The Board of Directors is convening an Advisory. I am working with administrators to read the research and determine best practices for middle level."

I thought that was her regular job. If it isn't, what is her regular job? Lorna Spear has a doctorate, she makes more than $100,000 per year, and this is the best she can do in answering a question about a taxpayer-funded study? It isn't good enough.

(Update: I called Dr. Spear's office on April 26 to ask for a meeting. A few days later, she called me back. I couldn't talk at that moment, so she offered to have her assistant call to set up a phone appointment. She had no time to meet, she said. Her assistant offered me 15 minutes over the telephone in the second week of May.)
(Update#2: Dr. Spear called me May 12 and told me she isn't doing a special study. She's just doing what she always does, she said - reading research and trying to improve the schools. I came away from that conversation without any sense of what specifically the district is doing with regard to the dropouts.)

Today, I gave Spokane Superintendent Nancy Stowell another opportunity to tell me what the school district is doing to address its low on-time graduation rate and its serious dropout problem. I'll tell you what she says.
(Update: As of June 11, 2010, I have received no response from Dr. Stowell. I think we can safely say I'm unlikely to ever get a response to this question.)




Please note: The information in this post is copyrighted. The proper citation is: Rogers, L. (April, 2010). "Is Spokane Public Schools a 'dropout factory'?" Retrieved (date) from the Betrayed Web site: http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailing.blogspot.com/

Spokane board adopts Holt Mathematics

On March 24, shortly after 10 p.m., the board of Spokane Public Schools voted to adopt Holt Mathematics as its new high school math program. The vote was 4-1, with the president, Sue Chapin, casting the only "nay" vote.

This is a positive step in the right direction for the students in this district. They have been waiting for a decade. I want to say to the students, "I'm sorry it has taken so long. I feel your pain. I know you have suffered. But I believe you will be happier with this book. It has most of the things you asked for - examples, explanations, descriptions, details, directions, tips & hints, instruction, clarity, 'real math,' definitions, procedures, answers, online help, videos, support materials, and helpful visuals. It will help prepare you for life after school, whether you go to college, begin a trade, start your own business, or just want to run your personal lives more effectively."

To the parents, I want to say, "I believe you will be much happier with this book. It has most of the things you asked for, too - clarity, examples, instructions, structure and 'real math.' You will be able to help your children. Your children will be able to help themselves. Please step away from any negativity you might hear and give the Holt program a chance. I think you'll appreciate it."

To the teachers, I want to say, "I know this book represents a change from what you've had for the last decade. I know you have been beat to death with reform and discovery, and when the result was a 42.3% pass rate on the 2009 10th-grade math WASL, you were blamed. I think you will find that the Holt program helps you, helps the students, and helps the parents. This is NOT a 'traditional' book from the 1940s. It is a balanced book. Some people want to scare you off of this book by saying it removes all of the conceptual learning, but this is not so. This book does contain discovery, application and conceptual learning. But room has been made in this book for actual content, and your students will benefit. The publishers have spent a lot of time developing support for you, including a good teacher text, online resources, examples, tests, and lab work. I hope you will give this program a chance."

To the school board, I want to say, "'Thank you,' especially to Dr. Jeff Bierman, who helped shepherd this process through the gate. I know you're all getting mixed messages from people, and that it's difficult sometimes to sort out the best action. This is a good thing you have done for almost 30,000 students. It will require follow-through. Students need more than this - like a better curriculum for K-8 so that they head into Holt Mathematics prepared. But this is a positive step in the right direction. You can feel proud of this vote. I am proud of you."

To the administrators who organized the high school math adoption committee, I want to say, "Thank you for allowing me to participate. Thank you for giving parents, students and teachers a voice in this particular adoption. It's been a long time coming, and every person who participated appreciated the opportunity. I hope you will continue to allow parents a voice. It is, after all, our children that all of this is for."

To the math and science professionals, and the math and literacy advocates who are so generous with their time, expertise and work, I want to say, "'Thank you,' especially to the folks with 'Where's the Math?' The last three years were a steep learning curve for me, and I couldn't have continued to advocate for these children without you. There is a special place in heaven for those who spend their days fighting for a better education for our children. It's an often-thankless task with many setbacks and few rewards. On the rare occasion we do get somewhere, we have done an immeasurably good thing for our children, our community, and our country. Many of you risk your jobs to be advocates. Many of you fight on, even though the decision-makers around you reject everything you say. Still, you share your heart, your time and your work with the rest of us. I appreciate you."

To my husband and daughter, I want to say, "Thank you for your patience, kindness, love and support. 222-222-2222 x infinity."

Onward, folks, to the K-8 math curriculum. Let's get it done.


Please note: The information in this post is copyrighted. The proper citation is:Rogers, L. (March, 2010). "Spokane board adopts Holt Mathematics." Retrieved (date) from the Betrayed Web site: http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailing.blogspot.com/

Spokane's curriculum committee chooses Holt

By Laurie H. Rogers


(Updated June 11, 2010.)

On March 11, 2010, Spokane’s high school curriculum adoption committee voted to recommend Holt Mathematics to the school board. This vote could have gone any number of ways. Some of the possibilities discussed were:

Recommending Holt Mathematics

Recommending Prentice Hall Mathematics

Asking the publisher of Prentice Hall to build a special textbook for Spokane

Rejecting both books and deciding to wait

The people on the committee feel passionately about the issue. Because our backgrounds are diverse, we have different perspectives. In an unusual move for this district, the adoption committee included high school teachers, middle school teachers, instructional coaches, parents, college math professors, and administrators. Students also were allowed a voice in the deliberations. Last fall, students submitted requests for what they want in a textbook, and in February, the student voice again was heard when piloting teachers commented on how their students viewed two of the books.
On March 11, I brought the committee a table of various assessments of Prentice Hall (2007 or 2011) and Holt. These assessments overwhelmingly recommend Holt. Here is a summary:

2008:

• The Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) examined 15 curricula for alignment to the new math standards. Holt was 1st, chosen over Prentice Hall at 4th.
• Dr. George Bright, professor emeritus, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, examined 4 curricula for mathematical soundness in algebra. Holt was chosen over Prentice Hall.
• Dr. James King, University of Washington math professor, examined 4 curricula for mathematical soundness in geometry. Holt and Prentice Hall were chosen over two other curricula.

2009:

• May: OSPI made its final recommendation relative to high school math curricula. Holt was chosen over all other curricula that were examined.
• December: Spokane’s adoption committee examined 8 curricula. Holt was chosen over Prentice Hall 2011 (overall, and also in certain specific areas such as “contextual,” “balanced,” “teacher planning” & “student-parent resources.”)

2010:

• January/February: Spokane Public Schools piloted Holt and Prentice Hall 2011. Indications of teacher and student preference were presented to the adoption committee on Feb. 22.
Of 33 indications of preference, 26 were for Holt. All but 2 students chose Holt. Three teachers voted for neither text. Two people didn’t specify a preference. Holt was chosen by every teacher who expressed a preference.

March 11 was the first time the committee was able to argue certain critical issues in an open, free-ranging manner. It felt great to be able to speak freely about our concerns.

• Almost everyone seemed to agree that more mathematical content was necessary.
• Several teachers said that teachers and parents absolutely need a math textbook – that without one, parents were lost and teachers were burning out.
• Several people – teachers and administrators – noted that teachers have materials in their classrooms to help with whatever supplementing might be necessary, and also that more supplementary material can easily be built.

After much heartfelt discussion and several votes, the committee voted in favor of Holt Mathematics. If the Spokane school board adopts Holt, it will join a number of districts in Washington State that have adopted (or that are moving to adopt) more rigorous math curricula, including Bellevue (which also chose Holt this week), Central Valley, Northshore, Edmonds, Shoreline, Tacoma, and Mercer Island.

I greatly admire the passion and commitment everyone on Spokane’s adoption committee brought to the process. The March 11 discussion was touching and enlightening for all. In the end, I’m enthusiastic about the result. I believe that Holt addresses most of the parent, student and teacher concerns about K-12 math instruction that have been expressed to administrators and school board members over the last decade, and especially that were expressed to the adoption committee over the last six months.

I also believe that while Holt represents a dramatic change from the current curriculum (Core-Plus Mathematics), teachers will appreciate the myriad benefits of the Holt materials: student textbook, teacher manual, online materials (including video and online textbook) and other helpful resources, while still being able to draw on their own knowledge, experience and other classroom materials.

Meanwhile, the K-8 math curricula currently used in Spokane will not adequately prepare students for Holt Mathematics. (They didn’t prepare students for Core-Plus, either, as evidenced by weak pass rates on math WASLs in nearly every grade.) Administrators have said they want to prepare students for postsecondary math, and Spokane’s adoption committee determined that Holt Mathematics is best suited for the high school portion of that goal. Therefore, K-8 math curricula also must be implemented without delay in order to prepare students for Holt Mathematics.

Spokane Public Schools should not wait for this next step. It is no exaggeration to say that there is a math crisis in Spokane. Spokane suffers with a 42.3% pass rate on the 2009 10th grade math WASL, a 60% on-time graduation rate, a 29.3% dropout rate, an 87.1% remediation rate in math in the Spokane Community colleges, and a net loss of about 2,500 students in this district since 2002/2003. A 2008 survey of families who had left the school district indicated that the main reason 33% of them left was the curriculum.

It’s time to let go of the belief that math content doesn’t matter, or that math content must take a distant back seat to the learning process. Spokane must select and adopt better math curricula for K-8 that will adequately prepare students for Holt Mathematics. To not do so is to consign students to a disjointed, unhelpful pathway from K-12. A foundation in math is necessary for students to succeed in high school math, but that foundation is missing in Spokane’s current elementary math curriculum Investigations in Number, Data, and Space, and also in its middle school curriculum Connected Mathematics.

If our students are to be successful in mathematics, this district must adopt K-12 materials that work well together to build a strong foundation in math skills and knowledge, and it must do that without delay.

Please note: The information in this post is copyrighted. The proper citation is: Rogers, L. (March, 2010). "Spokane's curriculum committee chooses Holt." Retrieved (date) from the Betrayed Web site: http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailing.blogspot.com/

Issaquah taken to task for choice of math textbook series

Comment from Laurie Rogers:
A curriculum adoption committee in Issaquah School District, WA, was slated to recommend to its school board that Issaquah adopt the Discovering series of math textbooks for grades 9-12. Dr. Steve Rasmussen, Issaquah superintendent, has said he supports that recommendation, and he wrote a letter to the Issaquah community to explain. You can read his letter here: http://www.issaquah.wednet.edu/documents/math/HSmath/communitymath.pdf

Meanwhile, Dr. John Sweller, School of Education, University of New South Wales, Sidney, Australia, read through Dr. Rasmussen's letter to the community and had a succinct response, which he has given permission to quote: "That is a long letter to defend the indefensible."

Below is a letter to Dr. Rasmussen from Dr. Paul A. Kirschner, Director of the Learning and Cognition Program at the Open Universiteit Nederland. Dr. Kirschner and Dr. Sweller are two of the authors of a 2006 article published in Educational Psychologist: "Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching." http://www.cogtech.usc.edu/publications/kirschner_Sweller_Clark.pdf

Dr. Kirschner gave me permission to reprint his letter to Dr. Rasmussen.

(Update: On March 24, 2010, despite this input from math professionals, and despite concerted effort from community advocates, the Issaquah school board voted to adopt the reform Discovering math series.)

*******************************************

Centre for Learning Sciences and Technologies
Valkenburgerweg 177 6419 AT Heerlen
PO Box 2960 6401 DL Heerlen, The Netherlands

Dr. Steve Rasmussen
Superintendent, Issaquah School District
565 NW Holly Street
Issaquah Washington 98027-2899

23 February 2010
Re: Save Math In Issaquah

Dear Dr. Rasmussen,
My colleague, Professor Richard Clark alerted me and my colleague Professor John Sweller to Mark Vanhorne’s open letter to the Issaquah School District about the district’s choice of a mathematics method “Discovering Math”. I read his open letter with a combined feeling of increasing astonishment and anger. Let me begin by saying that I myself am not acquainted with the method that the district has chosen, though I have taken the time to peruse the website of the publisher and read what the publisher says about the method. In my opinion, which is based upon years of research on learning materials, learning material development, and learning & cognition the choice that your school district is about to make will impact your students in a very negative way.

The method is an inquiry-based learning method. There are two main assumptions which underlie such instructional programs using minimal guidance. First, is that they challenge students to solve ‘authentic’ problems or acquire complex knowledge in information-rich settings based on the assumption that having learners construct their own solutions leads to the most effective learning experience. Second, they appear to assume that knowledge can best be acquired through experience based on the procedures of the discipline (i.e., seeing the pedagogic content of the learning experience as identical to the methods and processes or epistemology of the discipline being studied; Kirschner, 1992). Minimal guidance is offered in the form of process- or task-relevant information that is available if learners choose to use it. Advocates of this approach imply that instructional guidance that provides or embeds learning strategies in instruction interferes with the natural processes by which learners draw on their unique, prior experience and learning styles to construct new, situated knowledge that will achieve their goals. There are a number of problems with these assumptions which I will go into very briefly. If you would like to read more on this, I am attaching an article that I wrote with the two aforementioned colleagues – and which I use in this letter - which was published in one of the top journals in the field along with an article from my colleague Professor Richard Mayer, the top ranked psychologist in the world.

First, such discovery or inquiry-based methods ignore the structures that constitute human cognitive architecture and are thus not likely to be effective. Minimally guided instruction proceeds with no reference to the characteristics of working memory, long-term memory or the intricate relations between them. As John Sweller wrote in 1982:
"Inquiry-based instruction requires the learner to search a problem space for problem-relevant information. All problem-based searching makes heavy demands on working-memory. Furthermore, that working memory load does not contribute to the accumulation of knowledge in long-term memory because while working memory is being used to search for problem solutions, it is not available and cannot be used to learn…The goal of instruction is rarely simply to search for or discover information. The goal is to give learners specific guidance about how to cognitively manipulate information in ways that are consistent with a learning goal, and store the result in long-term memory.”

The result is a series of procedures and recommendations that most educators find almost impossible to implement because they require learners to engage in cognitive activities that are highly unlikely to result in effective learning. Further, these methods imply that the teachers have the domain knowledge and pedagogical content skills to carry out the instruction and can give the support and guidance that the method does not possess. Unfortunately, there is documented evidence (from your own Department of Education, that this is not the case as can be seen in the statement by Patricia O’Connell Ross,
(http://www.comsci.nist.gov/weekly_seminars.html), team leader for the Mathematics and Science Partnership Program, U.S. Department of Education:

"While primary education in math and sciences is highly variable, depending on each teacher’s comfort zone, by middle school it gets worse, with less than 50 percent of math and science teachers holding a major or minor degree in those subject areas. In some districts, up to 25 percent of high school math and science teachers do not have major or minor degrees in these subjects; however, this varies widely" (n.p.).

Second, inquiry-based learning is based upon the assumption that the epistemology of the domain (scientific inquiry) is also the best pedagogy for those who have to learn the domain. Scientists “do” science and math, are experts in their domains and are cognitively developed enough to abstract meaning from phenomena (both with respect to their expertise and age). Learners “learn” science and math, are novices in the domain and have neither the cognitive development nor maturation (see Piaget with respect to cognitive development and abstract thinking) to abstract the necessary meaning. In other words, children are not “little adults” (see Luria for example) and novices are not just less knowledgeable experts (see De Groot for example).

"The incorrect belief that children and adults differ only in quantitative terms has become firmly entrenched in the general consciousness. Its proponents argue that if you take an adult, make him smaller, somewhat weaker and less intelligent, and take away his knowledge and skills, you will be left with a child. This notion of the child as a small adult is very widespread…essentially the child is…in many respects radically different from the adult, and [that he] is a very special creature with his own
identity… qualitatively different from the adult" (Vygotsky & Luria, 1930 (translation 1992), Chapter 2, np).

In other words, the differences between experts and novices manifest themselves not only at the conceptual level, but also at the level of epistemology and ontology. Hurd wrote in 1969 that this makes the mistake of ignoring the difference between the methods and behaviours of an expert in a domain and a student that has to learn that domain. A novice sees, experiences, and learns differently than an expert. Thus, while it might be important to teach students about the scientific method, this does not justify the use of the scientific method as an instructional method.

I hope you will reconsider your decision. Remember, the mathematical literacy of thousands of students for an entire generation hangs in the balance.

With kind regards,
Prof. dr. Paul A. Kirschner
Director of the Learning and Cognition Program

*****************************************

RTTT, SB6696 dangerous; administrators, lawmakers support them

Have you heard about the “Race to the Top” initiative? President Barack Obama and Sec. of Education Arne Duncan want the states to sign on to RTTT, which allows states to compete for one-time “grants” if they agree to make certain permanent changes to public education. It goes a bit like this: “Do it our way, and you can scrabble for these sweet taxpayer dollars. Don’t do it our way, and you can’t even try for the bribe … I mean grant. You also might find yourself with a few other … problems.”

To qualify for a RTTT payoff … I mean grant … states have to adopt “national education standards” (among other things). The standards ostensibly are being written – not by the federal government (which isn’t supposed to write education standards), but by the CCSSO, the NGA, Achieve, Inc. and other shadowy organizations. Don’t be lulled by this supposed Wall of Separation. The fed’s fingerprints are all over the standards – through money, policy and heavy political pressure. There’s more. The standards will soon be followed by national assessments and probably national curricula.

Last year, 48 states signed a “Memorandum of Agreement” saying they would participate in the standards movement. Washington State signed on quietly, with nary a peep to the public. Concerns were assuaged with variations on this: “Signing the MOA doesn’t mean we’re signing on to the standards. We’re just agreeing to look at them.”

Six months later, Washington State is poised to adopt the unfinished standards – sight unseen – with Senate Bill 6696. There are many things wrong with SB6696. One is that, following a review of feedback on the national standards, SB6696 says, this state “shall adopt” them. Not “might adopt.” Shall.
On Feb. 10, a Spokane school board member praised SB6696, saying it’s a “bill to watch.” No one on the board asked questions about it. No one expressed concerns.

The intent of this bill is to adopt unfinished, nationally directed education standards, sight unseen. The states are giving away constitutionally protected autonomy for a few coins they might not get. Why would anyone support this bill? Especially considering that a leaked draft in January indicated that the national math standards are much weaker than Washington’s current standards. In fact, they look like what we had before, with embedded constructivism and insufficient emphasis on standard algorithms. We got rid of those standards after a multi-year battle and more than 1.6 million taxpayer dollars. Yet, here they are, back again.

Despite all of this, SB6696 easily passed through the Senate on Feb. 11, with just 5 nay votes. Co-sponsor Sen. Chris Marr (D) told me on Feb. 12 that he doesn’t know much about it, but he’s motivated by the RTTT money and he has “faith” in the process.
He shouldn’t. Besides carrying out this process in almost complete secrecy, Obama and Duncan are going way beyond their mandate. It’s all there in 20 USC 3403:
“The establishment of the Department of Education shall not increase the authority of the Federal Government over education or diminish the responsibility for education which is reserved to the States and the local school systems and other instrumentalities of the States. … No provision of a program administered by the Secretary or by any other officer of the Department shall be construed to authorize the Secretary or any such officer to exercise any direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum, program of instruction, administration, or personnel of any educational institution, school, or school system, over any accrediting agency or association, or over the selection or content of library resources, textbooks, or other instructional materials by any educational institution or school system, except to the extent authorized by law.”

But that's so 1980s. Today, things are different. The Department of Education’s "High Priority Performance Goals" as of February 2010 include a "cradle to career" federal "education strategy"; mandated "intensive" reform for struggling schools; ensuring "comprehensive teacher evaluation systems" that are connected to student achievement data; and fostering - some would say demanding -"state collaboration."

In July 2009, I began asking the federal government, the CCSSO, the NGA, Achieve, the Washington State governor's office and OSPI about the national standards. The Department of Education tried several times to pass me off to the CCSSO. (I finally filed a formal request for public information, and since then, nothing. I threatened to make a federal case of it. Still nothing.) From the CCSSO - nothing. From the NGA - nothing. From Achieve – a phone call referring me to the CCSSO.

From Gov. Chris Gregoire’s office, I received heavily redacted documents and a referral to Executive Policy Advisor Judy Hartmann. After a few months and several phone calls from me, Ms. Hartmann finally agreed to talk. She told me on the record that before the state signed on to the national standards, the standards would have to pass muster with the SBE, the superintendent and the legislators.

From OSPI, also after a formal request for public information, Deputy Superintendent Alan Burke told me (his answers in blue):

1. Is this effort supported politically, practically or financially by the U.S. Department of Education (DoE) and/or the White House?
This question should be directed to the US Department of Education or the Obama Administration for an appropriate response.
(Yeah, I already told you how that went.)

2. How has the public been notified of Washington's participation?
Education leaders in Washington State have been notified about the CCSSO/NGA initiative for common core standards in regional and statewide meetings. The general public has been notified through press reports about the initiative.
(Not from OSPI or Gov. Gregoire’s office, however.)

3. The NGA/CCSSO talks about an "ongoing development process that can support continuous improvement of this first version." Will there therefore be an annual cost to taxpayers?
   It is unknown to the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) if there will be annual costs to taxpayers related to the development of the common core standards.
4. Does OSPI support the section in the MOA called "Federal Role"?
   Once the common core standards are analyzed by OSPI with respect to their alignment to current standards for our state and a decision is made about Washington’s participation in this effort, a decision will be made with respect to accepting federal assistance.
5. Washington just revised its standards at a cost upward of $1.6 million. Why is this state participating in this new movement? What will be the cost to Washington taxpayers? If the cost is nothing, what kind of participation is it?
Washington has not decided to participate in implementation of the standards conceived of by this movement. OSPI has agreed to study the documents produced by CCSSO and NGA as the process evolves. Additionally, any costs to taxpayers is unknown.

6. Under what specific authority did Superintendent Dorn sign Washington on to this movement without public notification, input or consent?
Washington has not made a commitment to implement national standards; we have agreed to study the documents produced.

7. Who advised Superintendent Dorn on this effort? When did Washington State receive notice of this movement? How long was Washington given to decide whether to sign the MOA?
   CCSSO is the organization advising OSPI about this movement, and OSPI first received notice on April 17, 2009. States were given approximately 3 weeks to sign the MOA.
8. Under what conditions will Washington refuse federal incentives to implement these new national standards? Who decides?
   The decision process and conditions which would result in refusal of federal incentives to implement the proposed national standards is unknown at this time.
9. States had to agree that the CCS would represent "at least 85%" of the state's language arts and math standards. What happens if they only like 40%?
   Adoption of the common core state standards is voluntary for states; if a percentage sharply greater than 15 percent of the proposed national standards are not acceptable, OSPI will not implement the standards in Washington State.
10. Will current federal funding be grandfathered for states that reject the CCS?
    Federal fiscal impacts of not implementing common core standards are unknown at this time.
11. Once most of the states adopt these national standards, how will parents assess the standards to see if they're rigorous enough?
    The process for parental review of the proposed common core standards is unknown at this time.
12. In this process, there appears to have been no public notice, no public comment, no public vote. When will voters have a say?
    The process and timeline for public comment on the proposed common core standards is unknown at this time.
13. The MOA talks about a National Policy Forum comprised of "signatory national organizations" that will share ideas and build "public will and support." Who are these organizations?
    Please contact CCSSO or NGA for an appropriate response regarding this information.
14. How will additions and deletions to this forum be made and announced? Unknown
15. How will the public be involved in this forum? Unknown

“As this national movement progresses,” Alan Burke summed up, “I expect that public communications will become appropriate should Washington decide to take any formal action.”

Yeah, not so much.

In September 2009, State Superintendent Randy Dorn finally commented publicly on the national standards: “Adoption of the standards will be a state-level decision. … The common standards created by the NGO and CCSSO will be examined thoroughly and transparently. Any changes to the state’s standards would not occur for at least two years, and then only after an ample opportunity for public review and comment.”

By January 2010, everything had changed. Judy Hartmann's promised process is missing, Alan Burke's answers don't apply, and in a Jan. 25 press release, Randy Dorn supported SB6696, ignored its dangers and deadlines, and even said it doesn't go far enough.

It's important to face reality. Decision-makers meant to force national standards (and national control) on states from the get-go, using whatever subterfuge was necessary, at whatever cost was necessary, whether the American people liked it or not, and whether we protested or not. Everything math advocates have achieved over the last several years is on the line. Our ability to advocate effectively is on the line. And that's before we talk about the constitutionality of these bribes … extortions … golly, I mean grants. (I don’t know why I can’t remember that word.)

Please help me fight this. Write to your senators and representatives, and tell them to vote against this bill. It’s a dangerous thing, and it won’t help your children learn. Don’t wait to speak up. This bill is moving fast.

(Read through the bill by Googling “SB6696 2010” for the latest version. I’m betting there are other things about it you won’t like.)

Please note: The information in this post is copyrighted. The proper citation is:Rogers, L. (February, 2010). "RTTT, SB6696 dangerous steps; administrators all for them." Retrieved (date) from the Betrayed Web site: http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailing.blogspot.com/

A version of this article was published Feb. 15, 2010, on Education News at http://www.educationnews.org/commentaries/52470.html.

Decision favors plaintiffs in court challenge of Seattle math text adoption

Statement from Laurie Rogers:

Last year, Seattle Public Schools adopted the Discovering math series despite valiant opposition from parents and math professionals, despite poor assessments of the Discovering series' rigor and quality of presentation, and despite the fact that OSPI did NOT ultimately recommend the Discovering math series.
In response, three people filed a lawsuit, saying that Seattle didn't have sufficient supporting evidence for its adoption, and also that the Discovering series was associated with an INCREASE in achievement gaps.

Recently, a judge agreed with the plaintiffs and - while stopping short of telling Seattle administrators to cease and desist in their adoption - told them to revisit it. The district can continue to use the Discovering series, and Seattle administrators have stated their clear intention to do so.
Nevertheless, the court decision is momentous. It sets a precedent for districts across the country. When board members can't justify their adoption decisions, the people now have legal recourse.

What sheer arrogance and hubris Seattle administrators must have to persist in pursuing reform/discovery math instruction -- despite the statistics, despite the resistance, despite the remediation rates, dropout rates, achievement gaps, lack of skills, opposition from math professionals, concerns from parents, and low pass rates on standardized tests. Even with a court decision that basically says the school board's adoption of the Discovering series was rooted in ignorance ... Seattle administrators STILL persist.

Please express appreciation to Martha McLaren and her fellow plaintiffs for their courage and dedication. If you would like to assist Martha in her substantial court costs, please let me know and I can pass on your message.
Meanwhile, a toast to you, Martha. Other advocates will follow in your footsteps.

**********************************************

Press release from Martha McLaren, plaintiff. Reprinted here with permission:


Decision Favors Plaintiffs in Court Challenge of Seattle High School Math Text Adoption

Seattle, Washington – February 4, 2010 – Judge Julie Spector today announced her finding of “arbitrary and capricious” in the Seattle School Board's May 6 vote to adopt the Discovering Math series of high school texts despite insufficient evidence of the series' effectiveness.

Judge Spector's decision states, “The court finds, based upon a review of the entire administrative record, that there is insufficient evidence for any reasonable Board member to approve the selection of the Discovering series.”

Plaintiffs DaZanne Porter, an African American and mother of a 9th-grade student in Seattle Public Schools, Martha McLaren, retired Seattle math teacher and grandparent of a Seattle Public Schools fifth grader, and Cliff Mass, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Washington, had filed their appeal of the Board's controversial decision on June 5th, 2009. The hearing was held on Tuesday, January 26th, 2010.

Declared plaintiff Martha McLaren, “This is a sweet victory for the parents and students of Seattle Public Schools. It announces to Seattle that in this instance, the School District's practice of ignoring evidence, in favor of preconceived decisions, is arbitrary and capricious, and contrary to law. The judge's finding may, hopefully, be a step towards improving high school math education through replacing confusing textbooks with coherent ones. However, students at all levels, not just in high school, badly need clear, understandable materials. In addition, it is essential that teachers, especially elementary teachers, understand fundamental math much more deeply than is now the norm. There is much work to be done to bring improvement; this decision is an encouraging development.

We are hopeful that the District will move forward responsibly, putting the students first, and will decline to appeal Judge Spector's decision. If the Board revisits its vote, as ordered by the court, and this time refuses to adopt Discovering, it seems possible that the textbook rated 2nd by the adoption committee, a series by Prentice Hall publishers which is well-regarded by critics of reform texts, might instead be recommended by Superintendent Goodloe-Johnson. The Seattle Public Schools could then begin undoing the long-term decline in math education that has been extended by this disastrous mistake.”

According to the plaintiffs' initial brief, Seattle Public Schools began eliminating "traditional" math texts in the 1990s, moving toward an approach called "reform," "discovery learning," or "constructivism," among other names. Reform texts rely heavily on written language, presenting complicated, “real-life” problems. Memorization and skills practice is de-emphasized, and calculator work is encouraged from kindergarten on. Students generally work in small groups to devise their own approaches and solutions. With traditional "explicit" texts, however, students are given the opportunity to master key topics through examples, practice and extensive teacher feedback.

The initial brief had stated that the district committee chosen to review mathematics textbooks was biased toward reform, and that the textbook criteria were similarly biased, so that the resulting recommendation would be a reform textbook. The plaintiffs also asserted that the board voted to adopt the Discovering textbook series in contradiction of information presented from community members prior to the vote.

Citizens testifying to the board prior to the May 6 vote emphasized that the Discovering textbook series had been rated “unsound” in a review conducted by the Washington State Board of Education, and that the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction had passed over the Discovering program, instead recommending Holt Mathematics, a balanced textbook series featuring increased explicit instruction.

In Seattle, the movement toward reform texts has culminated in the adoption of the Everyday Math K-5 texts in 2007, Connected Mathematics Project (CMP2) texts for grades 6 – 8 in 2006, and the Discovering texts for high school in 2009 .

Attorney Keith Scully of Gendler and Mann, LLP, represented the plaintiffs in the lawsuit. Even before the decision was announced, the plaintiffs voiced their unanimous admiration for his presentation of the appeal; his handling of the case was clearly crucial to the success of the project.

##