Public Records Act: Speak up for your rights now, before they're gone

By Laurie H. Rogers

“The school board made us many promises, more than I can remember. They only kept one.

They promised they would take away our right to know what they’re doing. And they did.”

-- (A rephrase of a famous comment from Sioux Chief Red Cloud)

The Washington State Public Records Act allows citizens to obtain records from government agencies. It’s a critical aspect of open and transparent government.

House Bill 1128, however, would gut the Public Records Act, making it ineffective and useless. HB 1128 is currently before the House Rules Committee in Olympia. It's supported by a glut of public officials and ten associations for public officials. It’s also supported by legislators from both parties, in what amounts to a bipartisan shellacking of citizens.

Government officials are telling legislators that records requesters are being abusive, making excessive requests and diverting valuable resources away from the agencies’ primary purpose. Unreasonable requests are costing countless dollars, they claim, and something must be done to stem the tide.

But while some individuals do make abusive requests, HB 1128 punishes everyone – similar to restricting cars because a few drivers crash, or restricting swimming pools because a few swimmers drown. Part of what agencies are there to do is provide records to the public when asked. And almost all of the problems cited in testimony to legislators refer to former employees, not to the public at large.

A more productive, cost-effective, cooperative solution would be to expand the authority of the open-government ombudsman, or some other independent authority, to review requests and provide objective guidance to agencies and citizens. Such a solution was proposed by the Attorney General in 2011. But promoters of HB 1128 instead want authority to rest with public agencies and the courts.

HB 1128 would: Allow agencies to decide unilaterally if requests are burdensome; allow agencies to file for injunctions against the requests; eliminate penalties to agencies for operating in bad faith; and force requesters to argue their case in court (thus identifying themselves) or hire a lawyer to do it for them. It also can eliminate a citizen's right to future requests from a particular agency.

Even if a citizen has the money, time and willingness to battle a government agency and its army of publicly funded lawyers, it’s already difficult to find a lawyer who knows the Public Records Act (PRA), who doesn’t work for the agency in question, and who’s willing to take on such a case. HB 1128 would make finding that lawyer next to impossible. These concerns and others have so far fallen on deaf ears.

Supporters of HB 1128 say they won’t use the bill to obstruct or intimidate requesters, and that they will release records to “well-intentioned” citizens. But HB 1128 allows agencies to delay and obstruct requests and to withhold records from “well-intentioned” citizens. It allows agencies to intimidate citizen requesters through legal action. This makes assurances from supporters, such as the Washington State Association of Counties, specious and illogical.

HB 1128 is a very bad bill. It’s designed to protect the government from citizens, while doing nothing to protect citizens from the government. Worse, it allows agencies to use public dollars to stymie full disclosure to the public.

Here is just one example of why the Public Records Act is critically important to citizens, and why it must be retained for all the people of Washington State.

Board directors of Spokane Public Schools have been trying for more than a year to undermine the Public Records Act – first with their 2012 Legislative Priorities, and then with their 2013 Legislative Priorities. They’ve spent a lot of time and effort trying to modify the PRA, when their real mission is to oversee the education of 27,000+ children.

In December 2012, I asked the directors to explain their latest attack on the PRA. Four refused to answer my questions, deferring to the board president, who said he would answer for all. Bob Douthitt’s response suggests that no board director showed the slightest interest in obtaining citizens’ perspective on the matter before they all charged ahead with undermining the PRA for all of us.

Last week, I did a little more research.

The Spokane school board passed their 2013 Legislative Priorities unanimously on October 24, 2012. But that isn’t when their latest attack on the PRA began.

Early in 2012, the board had failed in its first effort to undermine the PRA, with Senator Lisa Brown’s SB 6576. Brown’s legislative aide, Marcus Riccelli, told board directors to start earlier in the year if they wanted to get a bill passed. Directors indicated in a board meeting that they would.

On April 25, two weeks after the legislative session ended, board director Jeff Bierman asked other directors for ideas for new legislative proposals. Just 28 days later, their 2013 Priorities were finished and unanimously adopted (with one director absent). The Priorities were steered to completion by Bierman, co-legislative liaison Deana Brower, and the superintendent and her cabinet. They include:

• eliminating the right of records requesters to remain anonymous
• forcing an “in-house” appeals process on records requesters (thus forcing requesters to appeal to employees of the same agency that refused to provide records)
• double-charging taxpayers for certain salaries associated with records requests.

This board wanted to adopt their 2013 Priorities early so they could push them with legislators over the summer. They also wanted time to persuade the Washington State School Directors Association (WSSDA) to make the Priorities part of WSSDA’s platform. WSSDA agreed, making undermining the Public Records Act a priority for all school boards that acquiesce to WSSDA.

Spokane Public Schools’ board president now is on WSSDA’s “legislative team.” WSSDA now is an official supporter of the execrable HB 1128.

Why would these five school board directors fight so hard to undermine the Public Records Act? They’ve had a huge head start, campaigning hard for the Priorities the moment the ink was dry. Board directors claim they don’t intend to undermine the PRA, but that assertion isn’t believable, considering their Priorities and the way they’ve gone about pushing them. Why are they so intent on limiting public access to public records? I don’t know, but I can guess. Read on.

Open public meetings:

Under Washington State law, government agencies must make decisions in public and after public notice. This is known as the Open Public Meetings Act. But these directors didn’t put their 2012 Priorities or their 2013 Priorities before the public. They didn’t place them on the district Web site until after I asked about them. At no point was there a discussion with any records requester, no discussion with the people about their determination to help rip a people’s law from the people’s hands.

Douthitt said the board “discussed and approved” the 2013 Priorities “at a board business meeting,” but I looked in vain for a pre-adoption discussion in all of their 2012 minutes. I see brief procedural comments, but no discussion or airing in public about the specific Legislative Priorities that were being considered. When and where were the discussions held?

Some records show board directors communicating by email about the PRA to all other board directors – so, in a quorum. Records show other topics being discussed by email between all members of the board. By law, discussions constituting a board quorum are supposed to be held in public.

PDC Complaint:

According to Washington’s Public Disclosure law, public officials are not allowed to use public resources to promote ballot propositions or elective campaigns. In 2011, based on the results of two records requests, I filed a complaint with the Public Disclosure Commission (PDC) regarding Spokane Public Schools’ 2009-2011 election activity. The PDC elected to formally investigate, and that investigation is ongoing.

• Part of the PDC complaint has to do with board and district activity regarding the district’s promotion of its levy and bond in 2008/2009. Associate Superintendent Mark Anderson and Superintendent Nancy Stowell ran that campaign and figure prominently in the complaint.
• Part of the PDC complaint has to do with Director Deana Brower, who in 2011 was a board candidate, and who now is the board’s legislative co-liaison. She campaigned for the seat on district property and was touted as the preferred board candidate in materials that were distributed throughout the district using public resources.
• Part of the complaint has to do with the district’s close relationship with Citizens for Spokane Schools, which works to secure “yes” votes on district levies and bonds.
• Records show that Stowell and Anderson worked with CFSS to “promote” the bond and levy.
• Brower was a member of CFSS, and records show her meeting with Stowell and Anderson to discuss an upcoming levy campaign.
• After I repeatedly asked Brower in September 2011 about the relationship between her and the school district, Brower said she had resigned her seat with CFSS and refused to answer further.

Almost immediately after Brower took a seat on the board in 2011, after the PDC complaint was filed, and after the PDC announced its investigation – the first board attack on the Public Records Act began.

Lawsuit:

Mark Anderson, who handles the district’s records requests, has delayed providing records to certain requesters, refused to provide certain records, and refused to fulfill certain requests. (See this article for a list of various district responses to certain requests.) He did not provide all of the responsive records for a request of mine from January 2011, and a lawsuit was filed early in 2012 to obtain the missing records. After this lawsuit was filed – the outcome of which is not yet resolved – the district released to my attorney and me thousands more records and several indexes of exemptions and redactions.

Anonymous Requests:

The PRA does not prohibit the filing of anonymous requests. However, Anderson refused to provide records for two anonymous requests from last June. The requests pertain to these board directors – to a) their first attempt to undermine the PRA and b) their communications while they ran for the school board. Despite directions from the new superintendent to fulfill the requests, they remain outstanding.

Another requester was accused last year of using a pseudonym and was told to provide proof of identity before records would be released. That records request, regarding the school board’s performance assessment of Superintendent Nancy Stowell, was ultimately denied.

The school board now is attempting to eliminate the public’s right to file anonymous requests, claiming that communicating with anonymous requesters is difficult. Email records I’ve been sent don’t indicate that. However, emails between requesters and Anderson do suggest that communicating with Anderson can be difficult. Some requesters have been repeatedly criticized in the community and the press.

In-House Appeals Process:

The school board’s 2013 Priority of forcing requesters to go through an “in-house” appeals process means requesters would have to appeal to employees of the same agency that refused to provide records. Who would speak up in that “appeal” for the requester? A lawyer? And who pays for that lawyer?

This “in-house” appeals process could easily be used to intimidate requesters, to financially punish requesters, to force requesters to identify themselves, to delay the production of records, and to put off the application of fees and penalties for a district’s failure or refusal to produce records.

Similar kinds of behavior would be allowed – perhaps even encouraged – by the passage of HB 1128.   On Jan. 25, one of the public officials speaking for HB 1128 was Spokane County Commissioner Todd Mielke, president of the Washington State Association of Counties (WSAC). WSAC is a vocal supporter of HB 1128. At about 56:10 in this TVW video of that hearing, Mielke responds to a legislator’s question about how HB 1128 might affect the media: I will tell you that, it’s not just me as an elected official, but every one of us, who, like you, are hypersensitive to the press. We know that they can kill us, frankly, if they want to, and we’re going to do everything we can not to be on their bad side and to accommodate. We have a rapport. …As an elected official, my advice is always, ‘Don’t pick a fight with the media.’… And (HB 1128) would actually give us more time to respond to (media requests) and be sensitive to those needs because of the public’s need to know.Gag. (Mielke omitted the fact that in March 2012, Spokane County settled a public records lawsuit for about $400,000 because the County didn’t provide certain records to the Neighborhood Alliance.)

Another WSAC official immediately followed Mielke by saying WSAC would consider incorporating an exemption for the media. And they did. HB 1128 now contains an exemption for the media – a blatant attempt to mute dissent from who they see as their biggest opposition.

Now we see their Priorities. Not you. Not your children. Not tax savings. Not open government. With HB 1128, these officials are not operating in the public’s best interests.

How do ordinary citizens fight off these attacks on the Public Records Act from self-centered officials, myriad associations that lobby for government interests, hundreds of publicly funded agencies, and all of their publicly funded lawyers?  This effort to undermine open government in Washington State must be stopped. Please call legislators today and tell them to vote NO on HB 1128.

Please also forward this article to other like-minded citizens and ask them to do the same.

Please note: The information in this post is copyrighted. The proper citation is:
Rogers, L. (February 2013). "Public Records Act: Speak up for your rights now, before they're gone." Retrieved (date) from the Betrayed Web site: http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailing.blogspot.com  

Common Core leading districts to adopt unproved math programs and failed approaches

By Laurie H. Rogers

Many of America’s public schools have incorporated “student-centered learning” models into their math programs. An adoption committee in Spokane appears poised to recommend the adoption of yet another version of a “student-centered” program for Grades 3-8 mathematics.

It’s critically important that American citizens know what that term means. Aspects of the Common Core State Standards initiatives are leading many districts to adopt new curricular materials that have “student-centered learning” as a centerpiece.

In Spokane Public Schools, student-centered learning (also known as “inquiry-based” learning or “discovery-based” learning or “standards-based” learning) has been the driver of curriculum adoptions for nearly 20 years. This approach has not produced graduates with strong skills in mathematics. Spokane now suffers from a dearth of math skills in most of its younger citizens.

Nor is Spokane alone with this problem. Student-centered learning has largely replaced direct instruction in the public-school classroom. It was pushed on the country beginning in the 1980s by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, the federal government, colleges of education, and various corporations and foundations. Despite its abject failure to produce well-educated students, student-centered learning is coming back around, again pushed by the NCTM, colleges of education, the federal government and various corporations and foundations.

Despite the lack of supporting research for the approach, trillions of taxpayer dollars were spent on implementing it across the nation. Despite its grim results, trillions more will be spent on it via the Common Core initiatives. But what is student-centered learning, and why do people in public education still love it?

Student-centered learning is designed to “engage” students in discussion, debate, critical thinking, exploration and group work, all supposedly to gain “deeper conceptual understanding” and the ability to apply concepts to “real world” situations. New teachers receive instruction in student-centered learning in colleges of education, and their instruction in the approach (i.e. their indoctrination) continues non-stop at state and district levels.

The popularity of student-centered learning in the education community rests on: a) constant indoctrination, b) ego, c) money, and d) the ability to hide weak outcomes from the public.

Ask yourself this: How does one actually quantify “exploration,” “deeper conceptual understanding” and “application to real world situations”? How do we test for that? We can’t, really, which helps explain why math test scores can soar even as actual math skills deteriorate.

With student-centered learning, teachers are not to be a “sage on the stage” – they are to be a “guide on the side.” Students are to innovate and create, come up with their own methods, develop their own understanding, work in groups, talk problems out, teach each other, and depend on their classmates for help before asking the teacher. Student-centered learning is supposed to be a challenge for teachers, whereas direct instruction is considered to be too easy (basically handing information over to students on a silver platter).

Ask yourself this: How much learning can be done in a class with 28 students of different abilities and backgrounds, all talking; a teacher who guides but doesn’t teach; and classmates who must teach each other things they don’t understand? How do students get help with this approach at home? What happens to students who don't have a textbook, don't have proper guidance, and don't have any help at home? Direct instruction does make learning easier; that’s a positive for it, not a negative. Learning can be efficient and easy. How is it better to purposefully make children struggle, fail and doubt themselves?

But adult egos can be stroked by the enormous challenge of making student-centered learning work, even as it utterly fails the children.

In student-centered learning, student discussion and debate precedes (and often replaces) teacher instruction. “Deeper conceptual understanding” is supposed to precede the learning of skills. But placing application before the learning puts the “why” before the “how,” thus asking students to apply something they don’t know how to do. How does that make sense?

In student-centered learning, it’s thought to be bad practice to instruct, answer student questions, provide a template for the students, teach efficient processes, insist on proper structure or correct answers, or have students practice a skill to mastery. It’s OK for a class to take all day “exploring” because exploration supposedly promotes learning, whereas efficient instruction is supposedly counterproductive. Children are supposed to “muddle” along, get it wrong and depend on classmates for advice and guidance. Struggling is seen as critical to learning. Getting correct answers in an efficient manner is seen as unhelpful.

Ask yourself this: How can “efficient” instruction be counterproductive? Math is a tool, used to get a job done. Correct answers are critical, and efficiency is prized in the workforce. Quick, correct solutions reflect a depth of understanding that slow, incorrect solutions do not. Students do not enjoy struggling and getting things wrong. For children, struggle and failure are motivation killers.

The focus of a student-centered classroom is on supposed “real-world application.” (My experience with “real-world application” is that it’s typically a very adult world rather than a child world, and that now, it’s also a political world with a heavily partisan focus.)

Ask yourself this: How does it help children to be enmeshed in an adult world of worries, prevented from learning enough academics, and basted in a politically partisan outlook? (It doesn’t help them, but it suits adults who want a certain kind of voter when the students turn 18.)

All of this is at the expense of learning sufficient skills in mathematics.

Here is one example of an adult perspective of student-centered learning. We can only guess whether students would enjoy this lesson or learn from it. The article is called “Messy monk mathematics: An NCTM-standards-inspired class session.” It’s dedicated to Stephen I. Brown, who is said to be “an inspiration for inquiry-based teaching and learning.” The author, Larry Copes, has a doctorate in mathematics education (not in mathematics). His doctoral work was on the ways math instruction can “encourage intellectual, ethical, and identity development.”

After reading Copes’ article, did you say: “Wow! I love the method! The students were so engaged!” Or, did you say: “What a waste of time! The ‘lesson’ was obviously designed to stroke the teacher’s ego and not to provide students with the math concept.”

I see the teacher in that anecdote as egotistic, holding knowledge over the students’ head, refusing to give it to them, making them jump for it over and over. It seems selfish. The students didn’t appear to ever understand the concept. What’s the point of tossing in the name of a Theorem (the Intermediate Value Theorem) without ever explaining it? Although the students wrote down the name, they didn’t pursue it, and the anecdote ended without a resolution or proof that they learned anything. I wonder if the teacher cared whether they learned the Theorem, or if his little game and his complete focus on himself were what mattered to him.

My daughter read Copes’ article, and she wrote (as if the author were speaking): “I am an individual afflicted with an extraordinary amount of hubris, which has affected my research.”

My daughter is funny, but it does seem impossible to bridge these gaps in perception:

• Proponents of the “student-centered” approach see themselves as hard workers, suffering with opponents who are stuck in the 18th century. The “deeper conceptual understanding” that they believe they foster in students seems more important to them than building math skills that consistently lead to correct answers.
• Proponents of direct instruction see the students’ weakening self-image and poor skills, and we view the student-centered approach as limiting and even unkind. Math skills and correct answers are the point of math instruction, and we don’t believe students can have “deeper conceptual understanding” if they lack procedural skills.

Proponents of student-centered learning like to call their approach “best practices,” “research-based,” “evidence-based,” and so on, but no one has ever provided verifiable, replicable proof that student-centered learning works better than direct instruction as a method for teaching math. There is actually a wealth of solid evidence to indicate the contrary.

Unfortunately, the pushing of the Common Core on states has encouraged many districts to pursue “student-centered learning” models all over again, as if they were required to do so. Some folks are already making pots of money off the Common Core and the new, unproved materials that are supposedly aligned with the Common Core. But student-centered learning hasn’t worked for the children in the last 30 years, and it won’t work in the next 30.

Nevertheless, the stated mission of Spokane’s adoption committee is to “deeply” align to the Common Core. (Not to choose a curriculum that will – oh, I don’t know – lead students to college or career readiness?) In supporting their stated mission, committee members asserted that the Common Core was vetted by “experts,” so they believe the initiatives will produce internationally competitive graduates. They provided no data, no proof, no solid research or studies for their belief. And they can’t because there aren’t any. The Common Core initiatives are an obscenely expensive, nation-wide pilot of unproved products.

Welcome to public education: Another day, another experiment on our children, except that this time, there is strong evidence that this experiment – a rehashing of the last experiment – will again fail. Try telling that to education and political leaders. No one seems to see the evidence. When you tell leaders about it or show it to them, no one seems to care. Meanwhile, many of those leaders get tutoring or outside help for their own children. (FYI: I have never seen a professional tutor use the “student-centered” method to teach math to any child.)

The Spokane adoption committee’s mission of “deep” alignment to the Common Core has caused them to choose to pilot – you guessed it – several sets of new (and unproved) materials that are distinctly more “student-centered” in their approach, heavy on words and discovery, and light on actual math.

Kicked to the bottom of their preferences were proved and rigorous programs favored by homeschooling parents and tutors, including Saxon Mathematics and Singapore Math. Saxon got my own daughter almost all of the way through Algebra II by the end of 8th grade, most of that without a calculator. When I asked my email list and various online contacts for their preferences, the majority picked Saxon over every other math program, and by a wide margin.

But a member of the Spokane adoption committee – a district employee – told me the Saxon representative called Saxon “parochial” and that the publisher initially refused to send Saxon to Spokane because it was unlikely to be adopted. (“Parochial” means provincial, narrow-minded, or “limited in range or scope.”) Do you believe the Saxon rep would call his product narrow-minded and limited in scope? Saxon is efficient, thorough, clear and concise. If there is a stronger K-8 math program out there, I don’t know of it. Naturally, the Spokane adoption committee does not want Saxon.

One of the programs the committee did choose to pilot is Connected Mathematics, a curriculum already being used in Spokane, one of the worst programs on the planet, excoriated for decades by mathematicians from border to border and from coast to coast. The district employee assured me the committee is hiding nothing from the public, but the committee didn’t mention to the public that it is again piloting Connected Mathematics. They don’t seem to see its failure. They love its focus on student-centered learning. The devastation it wreaks on math skills appears to matter naught to them.

There is one more community meeting for this adoption committee, on Tuesday, Jan. 29, at Sacajawea Middle School in Spokane. Whether you can attend or not, please take a moment to fill out the district survey – either the short version or the long version. Tell the Spokane superintendent what you want in a math program. If we want Spokane teachers to ever be allowed to actually teach mathematics to the children, we’re going to have to say so.

I know district administrators and board directors have not been good about listening to community wishes on math, and that it seems pointless to talk to them. But for the good of the children, please try. Perhaps this time, someone will listen.

Please note: The information in this post is copyrighted. The proper citation is:
Rogers, L. (January 2013). "Common Core leading districts to adopt unproved math programs and failed approaches." Retrieved (date) from the Betrayed Web site: http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailing.blogspot.com 

Fatal flaws in Common Core standards for ELA beg the question: Which way for Indiana and other states?

By Sandra Stotsky

 -- originally posted on the Indiana Policy Review


The defeat of Tony Bennett as Indiana’s State Superintendent of Education was attributed to many factors. Yet, as one post-election analysis indicated, the size of the vote for his rival, Glenda Ritz, suggests that the most likely reason was Mr. Bennett’s support for, and attempt to implement, Common Core’s badly flawed standards.

Common Core’s English language arts standards don’t have just one fatal flaw, i.e., its arbitrary division of reading standards into two groups: 10 standards for “informational” text and nine for “literature” at all grade levels from K to 12. That’s only the most visible; its writing standards turn out to be just as damaging, constituting an intellectual impossibility for the average middle-grade student — and for reasons I hadn’t suspected. The architects of Common Core’s writing standards simply didn’t link them to appropriate reading standards, a symbiotic relationship well-known to reading researchers. Last month I had an opportunity to see the results of teachers’ attempts to address Common Core’s writing standards at an event put on by GothamSchools, a four-year-old news organization trying to provide an independent news service to the New York City schools.

The teachers who had been selected to display their students’ writing (based on an application) provided visible evidence of their efforts to help their students address Common Core’s writing standards — detailed teacher-made or commercial worksheets structuring the composing of an argument. And it was clear that their students had tried to figure out how to make a “claim” and show “evidence” for it. But the problems they were having were not a reflection of their teachers’ skills or their own reading and writing skills. The source of their conceptual problems could be traced to the standards themselves.

At first glance the standards don’t leap out as a problem. Take, for example, Common Core’s first writing standard for grades six, seven and eight (almost identical across grades): “Write arguments to support claims with clear reasons and relevant evidence.” This goal undoubtedly sounds reasonable to adults, who have a much better idea of what “claims” are, what “relevant evidence” is and even what an academic “argument” is. But most children have a limited understanding of this meta-language for the structure of a composition.

So I explored Common Core’s standards for reading informational text in grades three, four and five (and then in grades six, seven and eight) and discovered nothing on what a claim or an argument is, or on distinguishing relevant from irrelevant evidence. In other words, the grades six, seven and eight writing standards are not coordinated with reading standards in grades three to eight that would require children to read the genre of writing their middle-school teachers are expecting them to compose. Middle-school teachers are being compelled by their grade-level standards to ask their students to do something for which the students will have to use their imaginations.

Do elementary and middle-school teachers need this problem spelled out for them? Yes, I also discovered in talking to several of the teachers at this event. They apparently knew nothing about the research on — and value of — prose models, a well-known body of research just a few decades ago.

This raises a common-sense question: How can middle-grade children be expected to understand how to set forth a “claim” and provide “relevant evidence” to support it if they haven’t been taught (and won’t be taught) how to identify an academic argument, a claim and irrelevant evidence in what they have read? No wonder New York City teachers are spending an enormous amount of time creating worksheets to structure students’ writing, and their students are spending an enormous amount of time filling these worksheets in.

One teacher, for example, admitted spending a lot of time trying to help her students come up with a topic sentence (it is close to a “claim” but is also not mentioned in Common Core’s reading or writing standards). And her worksheets showed the dutiful efforts of a few children to do this. A topic sentence doesn’t come easy to many middle-school students, especially if they haven’t read a lot of well-written articles with topic sentences that the children have been asked to identify until they really know what one is and what one does for the rest of the paragraph.

Two other teachers had first assigned some short stories (maybe to engage their students?) before asking their students to come up with a “thesis” or a “claim” and produce “evidence” for it. Needless to say, the children’s writing didn’t show a “claim.” Not surprising. The only prose models the children had been given were two- to three-page stories.

But some teachers were forging ahead despite the conceptual difficulties their students were encountering. Another teacher, for example, acknowledged the lack of a visible “literary thesis” or “claim” in her middle-school students’ writing (most were not strong students). She was pleased they were learning to cite page numbers for the location of their “evidence,” even though their “thesis” or “claim” had to be “inferred.”

The problem deepened when I examined another writing standard for middle school. Common Core’s architects did suspect that writing was related to reading. They just didn’t know how it was. The ninth writing standard for grades six, seven and eight asks students to apply grades six, seven and eight reading standards as they “draw evidence from literary or informational texts to support analysis, reflection, and research.”

What are these reading standards? Here are the first two:

1. “Cite textual evidence to support analysis of what the text says explicitly as well as inferences drawn from the text.”
2. “Determine a theme or central idea of a text and analyze its development over the course of the text; provide an objective summary of the text.”

The problem here is that the reading standards are almost identical in grades six, seven and eight for both literature and informational text. It seems that children are also being expected to analyze literary and non-literary texts as if they are both genres of expository prose. No well-trained English teacher would expect children reading a short story or novella in grade six to figure out first its “theme” and then “analyze its development over the course of the text.” That’s something one would do with children with a controlling idea in the introductory paragraph of an informational piece. The architects of these standards don’t seem to have a firm grasp on the differences between literature and informational texts.

Years ago, it was common practice for English teachers to introduce students to the art of the essay in grade nine. Now students in grade six are to attempt composing an essay with a thesis or a claim. One New York City teacher saw this as a healthy “challenge” for her weak students. Others might see this challenge as a Utopian expectation, with teachers the ultimate scapegoat.

Some children, already strong readers, are, of course, going to get it. Their English teachers will eventually figure the problems out, or their parents will. But guess which children are going to be the most confused? Probably the least able readers and writers, the very ones Common Core wants to make “college-ready.”

It’s time for the standards that the National Governors Association and the Council for Chief School State Officers have copyrighted to be drastically revised. The problem here is: Who is to do the revisions? And what should Indiana be doing while the legal issues get sorted out?

Here is my two-cents worth: 1) The Indiana state board of education should re-adopt its own, first-class English Language Arts standards (with perhaps minor changes), as well as its own first-class math standards (which the latest Trends in Mathematics and Science Study results suggest are working well in Indiana); and 2) label them Indiana “college-readiness” standards just as other states have labeled their own standards.

Sandra Stotsky is professor of education reform emerita at the University of Arkansas, where she held the 21st Century Chair in Teacher Quality. She is a well-known evaluator of states’ standards, and she served on the Common Core Validation Committee. She has provided testimony about the Common Core Standards before the Indiana Senate Education Committee. She is an authority on curriculum standards, having helped many states (including Massachusetts and Texas) to write their own. She received her doctoral degree at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. Professor Stotsky wrote this article at the request of the Indiana Policy Review Foundation.

Comment 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.

Political indoctrination replacing academics as the mission of K-12 public education

By Laurie H. Rogers

What’s the mission of any school district? Most parents seem to agree that it’s academics. Schools should prepare students academically for postsecondary life – whether it’s college, a trade, a career, the military or some other endeavor.

Alas, many public schools don’t focus on college or career readiness, and their mission statements don’t say they have to. Instead, other, more nebulous goals are their stated priorities, such as turning students into global citizens, “challenging” them, helping them develop “supportive relationships,” and having them engage in “relevant, real-life applications.”

“Equity” and “social justice” also are emphasized in many districts. Some districts have created new departments, applied for federal grants or hired $100,000+ personnel – supposedly to foster equity and social justice. But what’s behind the terminology?

Actual equity and social justice entail providing ALL students with the academic skills they need to lead a productive postsecondary life. But in public education, the terms tend to be ambiguous and politically laden, focusing instead on perceived unfairness. In the typical social-justice curriculum, America frequently is portrayed as the bad guy.

At the Fifth Annual Northwest Conference on Teaching for Social Justice, academics were not the theme. Instead, teachers learned how to encourage and train students to become activists. They challenged what they perceive to be America’s history of power, white privilege and oppression; supported myriad alternative lifestyles; discussed issues of race, gender, class and undocumented status; challenged “ableism” (discrimination by the able-bodied and able-minded); and learned how “oppression affects the lives of students marginalized by race, class, language, gender, and sexual orientation.”

There are schools purely devoted to issues of social injustice, such as the Social Justice High School in Chicago: “Project based and problem based learning that addresses real world issues through the lenses of race, gender, culture, economic equity, peace, justice, and the environment will be the catalyst for developing our curriculum.”

There is the White Privilege Conference, an ironic concept considering that many dedicated education advocates are Caucasian. (Actually, what I’ve seen over six years of advocacy looks more like Union-Administrator-Media Privilege. Maybe we could have a conference on that.)

There is Teachers for Social Justice, where teachers learn about “adultism” (i.e. adults who “use their position of power to affect the youth”); about integrating LGBTQ content into the curriculum; and about challenging gender norms with first-graders.

There is Welcoming Schools, “an LGBT-inclusive approach to addressing family diversity, gender stereotyping and bullying and name-calling in K-5 learning environments.” Did you notice that it’s directed at kindergartners?

Look into your district’s sex-ed program. These programs used to focus on preventing teen pregnancy. Now, see what the little ones are learning about sex, abortion, contraception and homosexuality. Students aren’t being taught long division, but they’re learning about alternative lifestyles. Last year, one 4th grader watched a district sex-education video and subsequently made a related joke to a friend – as young boys will do. This boy was disciplined, his parents were notified, a letter was sent home, and the entire class heard about his “bullying.”

Nowhere in this social-justice agenda do I see anyone standing up for the military and veterans, who have suffered much discrimination and prejudice. Or for police. Or for firefighters. Or for anyone who died in service of the country. Or for the four Americans who were murdered on Sept. 11, 2012, in Libya (although I suspect schools are OK with standing up for the Libyans).

The social-justice agenda is not about equity or justice. It’s about complaining, accusing, rebelling, changing society and forcing extreme progressive viewpoints on captive children. And how tolerant is this community to dissenting viewpoints? Not very. It questions traditional American values, faults American history, paints parents as old-school and unknowledgeable and views Americans as prejudiced and selfish. Even young students are fed a diet of progressivism, weighty and depressing socio-political issues, a cynical view of their ancestors, and antagonism toward conservative thought. They’re taught to reform, transform and “fundamentally change” America, with little appreciation for what America does for the world; its role in keeping the world relatively stable; its superlative generosity to other countries; the sacrifices made by its Armed Forces; and how its system of government made it rare and great.

Some programs show students how inequity and social injustice span the globe, with slavery, sex trafficking and brutality. The students – still just children – are to take ownership of this brutal, unfair world and try to change it. (No wonder so many students become anxious or depressed.)

How will districts know when they’ve achieved their social-justice goals? (Never.) When can the programs be disbanded? (Never.) Do the programs result in well-educated students? (Frequently not.) The programs just grow ever larger, sucking up dollars and destroying learning time.

It won’t be long before children will be unable to escape this depressing, politically biased agenda. It drives the Barack Obama/Arne Duncan/United Nations education plan. This plan is ensconced in the Common Core initiatives, now federally mandated (in contravention of the U.S. Code (20 USC 3403).

The social-justice agenda apparently does not demand sufficient student academics. As the Edu Mob hustles after agenda-based grants and programs, I see no urgency regarding student academics or the truth. The Mob seems content to side-step the students’ misery as it accepts promotions, takes home $100,000+ salaries, and trots out fake numbers showing imaginary improvement.

In 2012, for one example, Spokane Public Schools congratulated itself over a near-80% pass rate in math for its 10th graders. This pass rate bears no relation to what our 10th graders actually know in math. Just two years prior, our 10th graders posted a 41.7% pass rate in math on a low-level test that required just 56.9% to pass. There had been no substantial change in the district’s math curriculum except to possibly become worse. Who in Spokane publicly questioned this magical improvement?

Spokane isn’t alone with its implausibly high numbers. College remedial rates (such as these from Spokane) suggest that if Washington’s 10th graders were given an actual “at-grade-level” math test, without calculators and controlled for those who received outside instruction, many district pass rates would be in the teens or lower.

How does one obtain equity or social justice without academic skills? Why do districts expect small children to teach math to themselves? Why do adults ignore poor academic outcomes, desperate parents and anxious students? I’m often asked: Why do schools persist in these failing approaches? Why isn’t there enough math or grammar in our schools? Why do materials contain a political agenda? Why don’t we have textbooks? Why can’t I see my child’s math work? Why can’t I help out with math in the schools? Why do teachers say, “Don’t help your children with math; it will only confuse them”?

Now you know why. An inadequate education system = more issues = more need for help = more need for money = more government intervention = more government intrusion = more government control. Much of public education now focuses on: 1) more tax dollars for the Edu Mob, 2) more pro-Edu Mob voters, 3) less transparency or accountability, 4) more power to squish out dissent, 5) more administrative control, 6) heavy promotion of the socio-political agenda, and 7) maintaining (already failed) teaching approaches and curricular materials.

If you read what I read every day, you’d be deeply alarmed. To have what they want, they must have it all. And they’re getting it. Here’s just a tiny snippet of what I've seen.

• A Spokane teacher advocating in the classroom for revolution.
• Politics permeating the math curriculum.
• A Chicago school telling parents they are not allowed to send lunches with their children.
• A Texas student being browbeaten for refusing to wear a district microchip.

Parents are purposefully kept at arm’s length from the truth – about the schools, budget, curriculum, agenda, and actual outcomes – because No Truth = No Parent Dissent. Those few of us who dare to ask questions are diverted, mollified, ignored or – if we persist – attacked.

A battle is on for our children, and we have nearly lost. Public schools have been “training” people for a while. Students learn to reject their parents’ influence and guidance (especially if the parents prefer less government), to question traditional American values, to fundamentally reform America in a “progressive” image, and to vote progressive. Even Republicans vote progressive on education. Pushing the social-justice agenda is as easy as stealing from a baby.

Where is all of this taking us? The only place it can. Before, parents taught morals and acceptable behavior, and schools taught academics. Now, schools push a progressive view of acceptable behavior, and parents are forced to fill in the academics. But there aren’t enough of us doing that, and we aren’t powerful enough to overcome the social-justice agenda.

See it for yourself. Google “social justice” and “education” together. See how little the Edu Mob cares about academics or the welfare and future of the country (especially as a democratic republic). See how mocking and antagonistic it is toward dissenters. See its determination to push a globalist agenda and an angry, antagonistic, shrill view of America and its founders and defenders. There will come a point at which a conservative-minded person will not be able to win any leadership seat.

America is a “constitution-based federal Republic, with a strong democratic tradition.” It was founded on the idea of checks and balances – that no entity should have excessive power. A one-party system removes our ability to maintain balance. But many in the media, courts and other groups are politically active for the progressive cause. The U.S. Constitution and the law now are flouted regularly and without media pushback or legal consequence.

In 2010, The New York Times published an uncritical piece that advised President Obama to lead by Executive Order. And he is. What is the difference between a president who leads by Executive Order and a dictator? The Times has continued to discuss Obama’s Executive Orders, but minus the outrage one should expect from the media regarding a president who abuses the administrative process. Imagine if a Republican president behaved similarly. There would be passionate editorials, a push for congressional investigations and calls for impeachment. And rightfully so. But for Obama – near silence. A casual discussion. No big deal.

We’re in a dangerous place. The country now is run by government/media/corporate “partnerships” that are neither open nor accountable to the people. Instead of open government and privacy for the people, we now have secretive government and diminishing privacy for citizens. Mainstream media don’t investigate the government; they investigate dissenters. Our citizen rights under the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights are being eroded. Our right to privacy is being minimized through federal “rule-making,” and our personal information is being shared without our knowledge or permission. The whole package looks disturbingly Orwellian.

And yet, the people are increasingly ignorant of what it all means. Who in the next generation of voters will stand up for privacy, the individual, the Constitution, or the rule of law? Most graduates will lack the academics they need to properly run the country; the knowledge or perspective to critically assess what they’re being told; and enough understanding of the U.S. Constitution to know they must stand up for it. They will have energy and motivation, however, to agitate and rebel against their oppressors. (That’s us, in case you’re wondering.)

Welcome to the new mission of public education: Social upheaval – an American Spring – fomented by the social-justice crew, supported by the Edu Mob, praised by those who would do America harm, and paid for with our children and our tax dollars.

This great Republic is not yet finished, but it’s looking pretty grim out there.



Please note: The information in this post is copyrighted. The proper citation is:
Rogers, L. (November 2012). "Political indoctrination replacing academics as the mission of K-12 public education." Retrieved (date) from the Betrayed Web site: http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailing.blogspot.com

In defense of direct instruction: Constant constructivism, group work and arrogant attitude are abusive to children

By Laurie H. Rogers

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. … Those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

-- C.S. Lewis

Many educators believe children should learn math by struggling and failing, inventing their own methods, drawing pictures and boxes, counting on fingers, play-acting, continually working in groups, and asking several classmates for help before asking the teacher. This process of learning is called constructivism (also known as “discovery” or “student-centered learning”). Developed in the early 1900s, it was foisted on the country about 30 years ago, along with reform math curricula.

Proponents call constructivism “best practices” (as if calling it that can make it so). The supposed value of heavy constructivism is one of the most pernicious lies told today about education. Having listened now to students, parents, teachers and proponents of reform, I’ve come to see heavy constructivism as abusive to children. I don’t choose the word lightly.

I’ve heard proponents say outrageous things rather than acknowledge that children don’t prefer constant discovery and group work. At a 2010 math conference, a presenter said that children must learn in groups (“We know that,” she said), and that students who don’t want to do that fall into one of four categories: Bad apple, jerk, slacker or depressive. I was the only one in the room to challenge this; everyone else got into their little groups and prepared stupid skits about bad-apple children.

Welcome to the arrogance of public education. In the midst of “It’s all for the kids” and “We really care about those little kiddoes,” math class has become brutal and cruel.

My teenager said: “Educators talk as though students refuse to be taught, like we’re a dog that can’t be potty trained to use the outdoors. I mean, it’s not like we want to remain uneducated. It’s not like we want to be stuck in high school forever. We want to escape. We want to learn. When we say that we want something, we’re not trying to keep ourselves uneducated. So if we don’t want to work in a group, there’s probably a good reason. Maybe one of us has had a bad day, and we just don’t want to deal with other people. I mean, we all have those days. Maybe two of the people in the group are having a fight and you know that the whole day is going to be more about the fight than it is about the homework. There are so many reasons to not work in groups, besides issues with concentration and work level.”

Younger children don’t necessarily know why they don’t like something. Games can be fun, and reform classes are full of games. Some games are fun for a while; others are confusing; none leads to math proficiency. But students must play games, work in groups, explain things in several different ways, invent and discover, write paragraphs about math, draw boxes and circles, discuss math at length with classmates, play-act, use manipulatives, and take all day to get practically nowhere. The process can be excruciating, not just for natural leaders and quick learners, but also for children who are slower to learn; who feel sad, angry, shy or troubled; who are autistic, English-language learners or newer readers; who have behavioral issues; or who just don’t enjoy working in groups.

When did it stop being OK to be an individual?

Children who learn an efficient method at home and who pass it on to classmates also can find themselves being reprimanded. In today’s constructivist class, children must not deny their classmates the chance to struggle and fail. Students often aren’t even allowed to use the efficient methods their parents taught them, not even if those methods work better for them. They must suffer and fail along with everyone else. Naturally, they can come to resist the constructivist approach, whereupon they will be blamed for lacking motivation. Parents who resist it are seen as problems.

Parents know about connections between student frustration and deteriorating motivation, but proponents of reform are trained to not listen to parents. They say to parents: “You want those methods because they’re what you had as a child, but please don’t teach them to your children. It will confuse them.” Later, those parents will be blamed for their lack of involvement.

After a few years of reform math, many children decide they hate math. I’ve seen this attitude in second graders, third graders, fourth graders, and students from fifth grade on up. They’ve forgotten that they used to like math, that math is cool, that they used to be good at it. Suddenly, math is a huge problem. They need special help, intervention, a special ed program, counseling, drop-out prevention programs, and meetings with parents, teachers, a tutor or a mentor. Their life is spiraling out of control in front of their eyes, but in constructivist classrooms, there is nowhere to hide. Any problems are in plain sight, in front of every classmate.

I asked my daughter what effect it can have on students, to be failing a basic math class. She said:

“It can either have the effect of ‘I’m not good enough.’ You know, ‘The teacher’s spending all of this time on me, and I’m still not good enough.’ And kind of a depressing effect. Or it can be ‘Well, I’m bad at this, so who cares. I might as well skip school.’ Either way, very few students would thrive under that.”

About the idea that students must struggle and fail in order to learn math, she said:

“If 99% of the adults who said that were reversed back in time and put in a discovery classroom, they would have the same opinion that 99% of the kids do. …Saying that kids need to learn in groups and saying that kids need to struggle is so absolutely ridiculous and cruel to kids. School is supposed to be a refuge. It’s supposed to be the place where dreams come true and you can do anything. And it’s the start of your dreams. If you’re going to be an astronaut, if you’re going to be a lawyer, or change the world, school is where it starts. And you’re crushed before you even get half-way in the door.”

Children won’t typically say to adults, “I don’t like reform math” or “I don’t like constructivism.” Children tend to internalize problems and to blame themselves. They take their cues from the adults around them. So, they might say, “I’m not very good in math.” “I’ve never understood math.” "Math is hard." “Math isn’t my thing.” And I have heard that repeatedly, from an alarming number of students of all ages. What’s actually a failure in K-12 education has turned into a self-esteem problem for the children, to a point at which they literally panic over simple calculations. Their self-doubt and lack of skills can follow them forever, limiting them in innumerable ways – dark shadows on their life.

“I don’t get it” can quickly turn into “I hate math,” which can turn into “I hate school” which can turn into “I don’t want to go to school today,” which can turn into illness, dropping out, or behavioral or emotional issues. You’ve heard of “early warning signals” for dropping out? A known warning signal is failed math classes. But many schools gloss over that fact, while obstinately refusing to do the one thing that needs to be done: Allow the teachers to directly teach sufficient math to the students.

You don’t have to take my word for it. Ask the children. Take their difficulties to the district and listen to those adults blame everything on you, your children, your children's teachers, social issues, money, evolving standards, or some other stray-dog excuse. Then, fume just as I do, as those adults turn a blind eye to your children’s misery.

A mom wrote to me last week: “The reform math is tearing my child's self confidence, and her second-grade teacher told me last week that she sees the instant terror or fear on my daughter’s face when she asks them to bring their math materials up for their lesson. I can’t imagine feeling this way in school. … I never have felt so fearful of a subject as I see in my daughter’s face when I say let’s do math homework. Math to her is like a plague and she very easily starts crying because it is so puzzling in her mind. She is a very bright girl and makes straight As in every other subject.”

In constructivist classes, group work is the name of the game. Some math classes are taught entirely through group work. My daughter explained the problem she had with constant group work:

“The leader of the group has the responsibility of keeping everyone in line and on task, and making sure everyone in the group learns. And generally, the leader is going to be someone who cares about whether everyone learns. But the leader has no ability to make the end result happen, and no authority, and everybody knows it. You’re trying to teach people who know they’re not going to remember it or understand it, so they don’t see a point. And when people get frustrated with it, it feels like a personal failure. And through all this, you’re still not getting the math concept down.

“If you’re in the middle, then you’re just trying to get by. You’re just trying to survive around the mix of the two extremes. It’s more of a busywork, and if you’re asked in three or four days what you were working on, then you probably won’t remember.

“And if you’re on the lower end, then it just sucks. You’re so embarrassed that somebody has to teach you, you’re probably not paying attention at all. And you’re going to pass off your ‘not paying attention’ as you being deliberately so. You’ll just write down what you’re told, depending on how many problems and how short of a time you have.

“I mean, I love how the schools keep saying, ‘Don’t plagiarize, don’t cheat,’ but they practically force half the kids in their classes to do it, to get something down before the time to turn in worksheets is up. If they were going to give us a terrible method of solving stuff, they could have at least told us how to use that terrible method. And they never taught us how to work in a group.”

Where is the teacher in all of this, I asked her? Teachers are to be a “guide on the side,” she said, not a “sage on the stage.” Many pro-reform teachers have rules like “Ask three (classmates) before you ask me.” This means children must always admit to several classmates that they don’t understand. It can change the nature of relationships and cause children to become resentful or dependent on others.

I’ve heard adults call children who are having trouble in math “the low group,” “unmotivated,” “selfish,” “dummies,” “typical teens,” “lazy,” “problems for teachers,” or students of “low cognitive ability.” I’ve known children who were assessed as special ed, but when their parents got them direct instruction from someone, the children suddenly stopped being special ed.

I’ve known Honors students who didn’t know basic arithmetic. Last year, I called every middle school and high school in my city to find out how to help a specific student who was in that position. Only one person in 12 schools criticized the curriculum -- but just lightly and only after first suggesting that the student be tested for a disability. Instead, I was told that the student couldn’t be real, probably should be tested for learning disabilities, likely forgot what she was taught, must have lied or cheated, or perhaps fell on her head and developed brain damage.

Ponder that for a moment. Brain damage. Are you angry yet? Are you seeing the abusive nature of this? I have long thought that proponents of reform would truly say and do anything rather than criticize their precious program.

I’ve seen high school graduates panic when asked what 6x8 is. I’ve seen children cry over math, and heard many students say that their math-inclined parents can’t help with math homework. In 2010, just 38.9% (later “scrubbed” to 41.7%) of Spokane’s 10th graders passed a simple state math test that required just 56.9% to pass. Local administrators dismissed what was obviously their failure with: “That number is irrelevant.” And to them, student outcomes are irrelevant. The real priorities in reform aren’t testable: Group work, struggling, failing, discovering and “deeper conceptual understanding.”

You’d think administrators would want to know the truth about the children’s math ability, and that they’d want us to know. You’d think when children are struggling and failing – they wouldn’t say, “Yes, that’s what’s supposed to happen.” You’d think they’d do everything in their power to kick out failed approaches and to buy a good curriculum RIGHT NOW. You would be wrong.

School districts love committees, so whenever there’s a change, they form a committee. It needs 60 people who aren’t you, plus sticky notes, Power Point presentations, butcher paper, highlighter pens and taxpayer-funded food. The committee takes six months to come to fake consensus, plus another six before a new curriculum arrives. Much professional development is required, and the new curriculum is reform and constructivist because that’s “best practices.” They just know that it works. (Well, not for your child, but that’s probably because your child’s in the “low” group.)

I asked my daughter how she thinks students learn math best. She said:

“I think we all have an individual way of learning best. I think that, in trying to create an individual way of learning, the schools have created an even smaller box. But I think kids want to be told what we’re supposed to do. We want to be given a set of parameters and a set of rules. I believe we want to be heard, because that’s the biggest thing. Whether or not we learn best with this format, we should be able to say that and tell that to our teacher or the principal or whoever would listen. But if nobody listens, then whatever way actually works, educators will never know.”

I asked her if groups of K-12 students really can “discover” good process and efficient methods. She said:

“I’m sure that at some point, some adult discovered good process because otherwise, we wouldn’t have it, but asking a child to do that, especially in a group, especially when we’re tired, and we don’t really care that much about it because we have homework, and it’s a sunny day outside, and it’s lunch, and especially if we’re only 10 or 11… You’re asking a child to essentially create a nuclear bomb with a marshmallow and a set of pliers and no instructions. It’s never going to happen.”

I asked what she would say about this approach to a room of educators, if she had the chance. My daughter was quiet for several seconds. Then she said softly and carefully:

“I would say that they have taken people who are my equal or better in how smart they are and how well they learn, and how nice they are and not as sarcastic. And they have screwed them over. And they have taken their futures and stomped them into the dust. It makes me really, really mad.”

Thank you for speaking up, daughter. It makes me mad, too.




Please note: The information in this post is copyrighted. The proper citation is:

Rogers, L. (November 2012). “In defense of direct instruction: Constant constructivism, group work and arrogant attitude are abusive to children." Retrieved (date) from the Betrayed Web site: http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailing.blogspot.com

This article was published Nov. 6, 2012 on Education News at: http://www.educationnews.org/k-12-schools/laurie-rogers-in-defense-of-direct-instruction/

In defense of proper process: Reform methods lead to lost information and incorrect answers

By Laurie H. Rogers

"Prior planning, plentiful preparation and proper process prevent poor performance."

(modifed version of old military adage)

Whenever I tutor students who were taught math via reform-math methods, one of the first things they have to do is learn a structured and consistent way to write down problems and calculations. Their experiences with reform math have left them with poor habits, leading to many errors and muddied understanding.

Repairing poor process isn’t a small undertaking. By the time reform-math students get to middle school or high school, entire books of math content are missing and many poor habits are ingrained. Developing good habits, therefore, is Job One, and it takes months and months of reinforcement before an efficient process becomes habitual. (That’s in addition to the actual math procedures, which also must be taught and learned.)

It’s harder to “unteach” a poor process and replace it than it is to teach an efficient process from the beginning. The Law of Primacy says students tend to learn best what they learned first – even if what they first learned was wrong-headed. Once students learn something, they tend to go back to it, as a habit and an instinctive first reaction. This is one reason why proper process should be taught from the beginning. Unteaching requires extra dedication, patience, diligence and consistency. It’s hard work to change bad habits, but it can be done. And with mathematics, it must be done. It’s so important to instill good habits and efficient methods. Clarity is critical to accuracy; students who wish to be accurate in math must be focused on clarity as they write down their work.

How Things are Done in Traditional Programs

Traditional math methods tend to unfold vertically on the page because working vertically allows students to easily bring each aspect of an equation down to the next line. This is the clearest way to view work and to ensure that critical pieces are neither forgotten nor lost in a chunk of writing. The work is done incrementally to avoid confusion, just one or two steps per line. Mental math is done only for very basic calculations; other calculations are done on the paper so as to minimize error and allow for checking of work.

I teach students to solve math problems on the left side of the page and do calculations on the right. Space is left between problems so that we can clearly see the pairing of the problem and the work that went with it. We don’t try to squeeze it all into some arbitrary snippet of space.

Pencils are used, not pens, so that mistakes can be erased and corrected. Students learn to check their work and to catch their own errors before I do. I don’t allow a calculator until Algebra II because basic arithmetic skills should be practiced and reinforced. (If the textbook is good, with reasonable problems that focus on skills and not on excessively complicated problems, then calculators are largely unnecessary and can actually be counterproductive.)

The emphasis is on “showing work” in a tidy and clear manner so that students, parents and I can see how the answer was derived and where something might have gone awry. Like this:

As students progress, simple arithmetic and multiplying by -1 can be done in one’s head. This approach is crystal clear and easy to check. Naturally, reform math programs tend not to do it this way.

How Things Have Been Done in Reform Math

Besides the nature of reform math programs – inherently confusing, word-heavy, picture-heavy, game-heavy, time-and-labor-intensive, and ultimately limiting – students also are encouraged to adopt poor habits and ambiguous notation. You wouldn’t believe what I’ve seen.

Not only do students not know sufficient mathematics, but their work tends to be sloppy and riddled with errors. They aren’t taught to write neatly, check their work or correct as they go. Their attitude toward accuracy is casual; toward math in general, it's negative and stressed. Motivating them to replace bad habits with good ones is a challenge that takes time, positivity, creativity and much intensive labor.

I don’t blame the children. I’ve heard administrators, board directors and teachers do that by saying things like “They’re just not motivated.” Or “They don’t care about math.” Or even “This is a low group.” I see a lack of motivation, yes, but I don’t blame students for it. They learn what they’re taught. If what they’re taught is boring, incomprehensible, time-wasting, hard on their self-esteem, confusing, or stupid – they won’t be motivated. Sadly, although the situation isn’t their fault, it is their problem. For most of them, this early learning will haunt their lives forever. It’s our problem, too. Graduates who have poor habits and insufficient academics are not capable of picking up the reins of the country.

I’ve been able to correct some or all of the bad process in a handful of students, but I am only one tutor and there are about 28,000 students in this district. Most will go back to their regular classes, where good process is not allowed and is even criticized, and where bad process is reinforced.

Here’s what I’ve witnessed in students going through (or graduates of) reform-math programs.

• They lack nearly all critical arithmetic skills. Some can’t tell time or say how many days are in each month. They don’t know their multiplication tables, long division, the number line, how to subtract negatives, how to work with fractions, how to convert between decimals, fractions and percentages, how to isolate a variable, how to solve an equation, how to read a problem, or how to show or check their work. Many count on their fingers.
• They're all pretty much math-illiterate and math-phobic. They don’t just lack skills; they also have zero confidence. One high school graduate panicked when I asked her to solve 6x8. Some cried over their math homework. They all tend to think the problem in math is them, and this embarrasses them. Some have actually apologized for taking up their teachers’ time.
• Asked to do some math problems, these students will often just plunk down an answer with no attendant calculations.
• If they do calculations, the work tends to be indecipherable – scribbled along the side, in a corner, or wandering around the page, in tiny print, too small for anyone – including the student – to read.
• Some students will automatically erase their work so no one can see it, or do it on a different sheet that is to be tossed out.
• Equations, if there are any, are often written horizontally (not vertically), with many “ = “ signs, sometimes with arcs, lines or arrows drawn to connect math terms.
• Many pictures and boxes are drawn because, in reform math, one correct and efficient method isn’t enough and can actually lose the student points.
• Because calculations often aren’t shown or aren’t done in a structured, vertical format, important pieces of an equation are neglected or forgotten, such as an all-important negative sign or a stray multiplier.
• Incorrect answers tend to remain on the page alongside correct ones. Picking out the work and the answer is difficult.
• Homework and worksheets often come from the teacher with no room for calculations because calculator use is expected. Extra worksheets often aren’t even to be graded. They're handed out for students to do if they want, but no one plans to review them.
• Students tend to reach for their calculator for the simplest of calculations, but the calculators don't consistently bring them correct answers. Fantastically wrong answers aren't questioned; students seem to have no idea of what a reasonable answer would be.
• Students are expected to “discover” important concepts – such as the slope of a graph, the point-slope formula or the Pythagorean Theorem – at home with their homework. “I can’t look for something if I don’t know what it is,” a student said to me, tearfully.
• Students aren't taught to work vertically; show their work; check their work; or to value efficiency, logic, correctness, neatness or legibility. They're not taught to carefully assess the problem for what it's asking, or to see if their solution actually answers that question.
• They're not taught to enjoy math, nor to enjoy the process of determining a correct answer. Instead, they learn to fret over math, to fudge answers, estimate, depend on the calculator, lean on “partners,” give up, get it over with, and accept whatever the “group” says is right, before blessedly escaping out the door.
• Students are taught that “close enough” is “good enough.” One student said her teacher told the class that angles within five degrees of the correct angle were close enough. (But in the “real world,” a mistake of five degrees can send you in a wrong direction or even kill you.)
• Last, but certainly not least, students are taught that their parents cannot help them. “Don’t teach your children traditional methods,” parents are told in open houses or on the first day of class. “It will only confuse them.” Imagine that – a failed education program actively interferes with parents helping their children. And then, that same program turns around and blames parents for not being involved enough.

Many people nowadays are dismissive of efficiency. I’ve heard that “Process doesn’t matter; it’s the results that count.” But one doesn’t consistently obtain good results without proper process. Those who prefer “deeper conceptual understanding” over correct answers have a flawed understanding of what math is and what it’s used for. In the “real world,” math is a tool used to get a job done. Correct answers are necessary. That means that proper process is necessary. In the real world, “deeper conceptual understanding” is reflected by being able to properly use a tool to get a job done correctly and efficiently. In math, that ability is gained through instruction, practice and mastery of sufficient skills.

Given proper instruction, a few people will come to love the field of mathematics and will want to delve more deeply into it, but for most of us, getting a deeper conceptual understanding of math is like getting a deeper conceptual understanding of a hammer. Math obviously is more complex than a hammer, but the principle is the same. For most of us, math will never be a philosophy; it’s a tool, and we need to learn how to use the tool. Once we know how to use the tool, then we go about using it.

Understanding the basics of math cannot come without proper process and correct answers. Reformers don’t appear to believe that statement, but their disbelief doesn’t change its truth.

Please note: The information in this post is copyrighted. The proper citation is:

Rogers, L. (October 2012). “In defense of proper process: Reform methods lead to lost information and incorrect answers." Retrieved (date) from the Betrayed Web site: http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailing.blogspot.com

This article was published Nov. 1, 2012, on Education News at http://www.educationnews.org/k-12-schools/laurie-rogers-proper-process-critical-to-effective-math-instruction/

In defense of the number line: Reform methods for teaching negatives fail on decimals, fractions ... and negatives

By Laurie H. Rogers

Because every time you use the Charged Particles Method to teach negatives, a brain cell commits suicide.

It’s simple to teach mathematical positives and negatives to a child. It’s been done successfully with the number line around the world, in private schools, homes, tutoring businesses and online. Unfortunately, many schools in America no longer teach the number line, don’t teach it to mastery, or they cloud any fledgling understanding of it by emphasizing other, less-effective methods.

First, I’ll explain the number line. Then I’ll show you what’s being emphasized in its place.

Traditional Math Method Used to Teach Negatives

The Number Line

A number line is a straight line with a series of real numbers listed at intervals. Typically, "zero" is a point in the middle, negative numbers are listed to the left of zero, and positive numbers are listed to the right of zero. Arrowheads are placed at each end to show that the line and numbers continue indefinitely. Each point is assumed to correspond to a real number, and each real number corresponds to a point. Like this:

(Comment: A number line is flexible and comprehensive. It can be drawn with integers, fractions, decimals, irrational numbers or a combination thereof. It can illustrate zero, positive and negative numbers, and small or large numbers. It provides an effective visual for adding and subtracting positive and negative numbers. It can be used to articulate changes in measurements, temperature, money, time or quantities. It’s clear, efficient and functional. It’s easy to draw, explain and understand.)

Naturally, people who love reform math prefer to not use the number line. Various alternate models are used that are not efficient and not comprehensive. Here are a few.

Reform Math Methods Used to Teach … Uh …

These models (with myriad variations) are common to reform curricula. The examples illustrated below are quoted (with permission) from materials originating from two public entities: Henrico County Public Schools and the Georgia Department of Education. The wording is theirs. Please notice that the Georgia materials are said to be based on the Common Core State Standards.

Story Model

In this model, children are given a story that supposedly illustrates a mathematical calculation or equation.

Example 1: “If you have spent money you don't have (-5) and paid off part of it (+3), you still have a negative balance (-2) as a debt, or (-5) + 3 = (-2).”

Example 2: “Getting rid of a negative is a positive. For example: Johnny used to cheat, fight and swear. Then he stopped cheating and fighting. Now he only has 1 negative trait so (3 negative traits) - (2 negative traits) = (1 negative trait) or (-3) - (-2) = (-1)”

(Comment: Stories and problems do help to apply math skills that have already been learned, but - as a teaching method - the Story Model provides no real mathematical understanding. The story in Example 2 also attributes adverse characteristics to negatives. In mathematics, a negative is simply a lessening of a quantity, not an adverse characteristic.)

Charged Particles Model

In this model, imaginary items are added to replace items that are already there: “When using charged particles to subtract, 3 – (-4) for example, you begin with a picture of 3 positive particles.”

“Since there are no negative values to ‘take away,’ you must use the Identity Property of Addition to rename positive 3 as 3 + 0. This is represented by 4 pairs of positive and negative particles that are equivalent to 4 zeros.”

“Now that there are negative particles, you can ‘take away’ 4 negative particles. The modeled problem shows that the result of subtracting 4 negative particles is actually like adding 4 positive particles. The result is 7 positive particles. This is a great way to show why 3 – (-4) = 3 + 4 = 7.”

(Comment: How does a child make the leap from 3 particles to 11 particles? Where is the explanation of what's actually happening? As I was typing in the Charged Particles Method, my brain felt like it was melting. Brain cells began to give up and die. My daughter had to rescue me with chocolate.)

The Stack Model and The Row Model

In the Stack Model, students draw boxes on top of each other in “stacks” and then count them. In the Row Model, students draw boxes in “rows” and then count them. Subtraction for the Stack and Row methods means creating pairs, as in the Charged Particles Method, then “adding zeroes,” crossing out items, and redrawing boxes over and over. This figure illustrates the solution to 3 - (-4) = ?

(Comment: The children will draw a lot of boxes, but they will not come to understand negatives.)

The Postman Model

In this model, a story is provided that supposedly leads students through understanding negatives. Children are to act out parts using manipulatives and props. The concept can be done with other scenarios, but this example from Henrico County School District is based on a mail carrier:

“A postman only brings financial mail. Sometimes she brings bad news, e.g., a bill for $5 = –5. Sometimes she brings good news - a check for $5 = +5. If she brings both you get two pieces of paper but zero dollars. You always start a zero with a cash drawer full of matching checks and bills that equal zero dollars. So if she brings me two checks for $5, no sweat, she helps me by $10, answer = +10. Similarly if she brings me 2 checks for $5 the result is 2 • –5 = –10. Now here is the tricky part: –2 • + 5 = ? Well the – sign means takes away from me. But if we start at zero how can she take anything away? This is where the cash drawer of matching checks and bills saves us. We just take away 2 checks and are left with 2 bills to pay. –2 • + 5 = –10. Similarly, if she takes away our bills, she helps us and the money we would have used to pay the bill can now be spent on bubblegum. –2 • + 5 = +10.”I think the second “2 checks for $5” is actually supposed to be two bills for $5. Please also remember that young students are the intended audience. The story suggests using a bag filled with Monopoly money and paperclips. Students pretend to deliver mail, cash checks at a bank and pay bills. At some point, however, the mail carrier makes a mistake, and the story goes on to say: “If it was a check, that would be subtracting a positive. To get the check out of the bank, you would have to pay the bank (which would make you lose money). If it was a bill (taking away a negative), you can keep the money attached to the bill and give the bill back to the mail carrier. This would show that taking away a negative would give you more money.”(Comment: There is so much wrong with this example, the explanation and the reasoning behind it, it's hard to know where to begin. The process is complicated; the financial philosophy is suspect. And what does that second paragraph even mean?)

The Balloon Model

In the Balloon Model, things are moved up (added) and down (subtracted). This concept can be done with anything that moves up and down (airplane, elevator, swimmer, etc.), but in the Balloon Model, sand bags represent negatives, and air bags represent positives. This illustration shows -3 + 4 = 1.

(Comment: The Balloon Model is a vertical number line, but it labors to be more relevant by using a balloon (or elevator or airplane or the sea). Thus, the concepts don't match up with what happens in "real life." The biggest problem: "Up" and "down" is not equivalent to "more" and "less."

Balloon Model: In real life, subtracting a sandbag lessens weight, while adding a sandbag adds weight. In the model, however, subtracting a sandbag somehow makes a quantity larger, while adding a sandbag makes it smaller. In the Building and Airplane models, nothing is added or subtracted to make a quantity larger or smaller; the movement up and down is mechanically driven. In the Sea Model, you could say that blowing air out of one's lungs (subtracting air) makes a person sink, although the change in weight would be negligible. But how does one add air under water?

Where in these models is infinity? Where are fractions and decimals? Where is zero located? At ground level? If so, are negatives below the ground? Since when have balloons and airplanes flown, elevators descended, and swimmers paddled below the ground?)

The (Hey, let's call them) "Net Changes" model

In reform curriculum Investigations in Number, Data, and Space (aka TERC), students are taught to think of “net changes,” rather than addition and subtraction. Students use manipulatives to act out the "changes." They count things and keep tallies.

If you search the term “negatives” on the TERC Web site, you'll have a difficult time finding actual negatives, but games about thinking about negatives are explored. Actually, take a few minutes and skim through the 1st Edition units for TERC. This is the approach to K-6 math that has helped to kill off math proficiency in the United States.

(Comment: Looking through the TERC Web site, you can see the end of mathematics ... and possibly all of life as we know it. The school district in my city still uses this curriculum, despite my best efforts to change that.)

Summary

Each of the reform math models illustrated here is missing one or more critical concepts, such as zero, negatives, fractions, decimals, large numbers, and/or infinity. They don’t adequately explain negatives, or show that the larger the negative number, the smaller the quantity. They don’t handle all scenarios. Perhaps some are “fun” for a very short while; others are probably no fun at all. Time spent on these models wastes time, builds frustration and creates misunderstandings. Instead of clearly cementing concepts about addition, subtraction and negatives, the children are filling paper bags or talking about “negative” traits.

Without an understanding of the principles behind the number line, students can’t add and subtract negative numbers with proficiency. Without that capability, algebra, geometry and calculus will be beyond them.

I don’t know why so many people in public education seem not to respect the need for efficiency, effectiveness, sufficiency or student proficiency. Math is a tool, used in the "real world" to get a job done. Time is important; efficiency is vital; correct answers are critical. Those who can use math properly will be hired over those who can’t. There is no time in the “real world” to discover methods, struggle with basic math, or constantly ask a “partner” for help. But math reformers seem to think they have all the time in the world. To them, math isn’t about efficiency and correct answers; it’s about struggle, failing, striving and playing games. Many reformers truly believe that if the teaching was efficient, the lesson failed. Thus, they’re motivated to not just prefer the inefficient models, but to actually eliminate efficient models, to mock them and to label them as counterproductive.

Help your children gain a solid grounding in math by teaching them the traditional methods, such as long division, vertical multiplication and the number line. Traditional methods were developed and honed over thousands of years by very clever adults so that they would be efficient. More-efficient models will be developed, no doubt, but the reform models I've described are not better models.

Don’t let anyone convince you that efficiency and effectiveness in math are unnecessary or counterproductive. People who actually use math (outside of a K-12 classroom) don't believe that.



Please note: The information in this post is copyrighted. The proper citation is:
Rogers, L. (October 2012). “In defense of the number line: Reform methods for teaching negatives fail on decimals, fractions ... and negatives." Retrieved (date) from the Betrayed Web site: http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailing.blogspot.com  /.

This article was republished October 25, 2012, on Education News: http://www.educationnews.org/k-12-schools/laurie-rogers-in-defense-of-using-the-number-line-to-teach-negatives/#comment-19236