Federal control expands despite the rules

The federal government is taking over public education. It has no legal authority to do this, but it’s doing it anyway. This is not change I believe in.

New national education Common Core Standards (CCS) were released in draft form in July, reportedly “prematurely.” Critics call these supposedly “international” benchmarks vague, fuzzy and inadequate, but the most critical questions about them actually have to do with the fact of their existence.

In theory, the CCS initiative was driven by the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices (NGA) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). The standards will be followed by development of a national assessment and perhaps a national curriculum. President Barack Obama and U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan have said they support this initiative.

I have questions for those who are pushing this initiative on an unsuspecting public:

• Who are they? Who lurks there in the dark, behind the scenes, basketball shoes in one hand and a bully whip in the other?
• How much will this initiative cost the taxpayer (who already pays ridiculous sums of money for an arrogant, secretive, ineffective, close-minded, top-heavy public-education bureaucracy)?
• Under what authority does the U.S. Department of Education direct, supervise, or control “the curriculum program of instruction, administration, or personnel of any educational institution, school, or school system”?
  
  • (Hint: None, according to Congress.)
• Where is the voter in this entire process?
  
  • (Hint: Nowhere, except as a means for more money.)

Since July 1, I’ve been asking questions of the U.S. Department of Education (DoE); the Washington State Governor’s Office; the Washington State Board of Education (SBE); the Washington State Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI); the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices (NGA); the Chief Council of State School Officers (CCSSO); and Achieve, Inc. (which is partnering with the NGA and CCSSO). Here’s what’s happened so far.

U.S. Department of Education:
From July 11-22, the DoE steadfastly refused to answer my emailed questions, repeatedly referring me to the NGA and CCSSO. I told them my questions had to do with DoE policy, but this had zero effect. I changed my tactic, calling the DoE directly. On July 25, I finally found a person willing to address my questions.

Besides the CCS initiative, I’m concerned about the DoE’s changing role. For example, Race to the Top is a competition for $4.35 billion in federal grants that President Obama and Sec. Duncan formally announced July 24. President Obama reportedly “wants states to use funds to ease limits on charter schools, tie teacher pay to student achievement and move for the first time toward common academic standards” (Shear & Anderson, 2009). He reportedly said in a July 23 Oval Office interview: “What we're saying here is, if you can't decide to change these practices, we're not going to use precious dollars that we want to see creating better results; we're not going to send those dollars there.”

Sec. Duncan has reportedly threatened California with the loss of federal “stimulus” funds if it doesn’t tie teacher evaluations to student achievement (Felch & Song, 2009). What does this have to do with the CCS initiative? Answer: Nothing.

Do what we tell you, California was told, or you don’t get the money. Whose money is this? Ours. Whose vision is it? Good question. Federal “support” is looking more like coercion or blackmail. This behavior is inappropriate. The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution says that “powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Public education, therefore, falls outside of federal authority.

Despite the Tenth Amendment, the Department of Education was created in 1980 to:

1. increase equal access
2. “supplement and complement” the efforts of states, schools, parents and students, and "encourage” community involvement
3. improve education through research, evaluation and information sharing
4. help coordinate federal programs, improve their management and efficiency, and increase their accountability to Congress, the public and the president.

From its inception, the DoE’s activities were deliberately limited – especially with respect to decision-making. The original act (Public Law 96-88) says “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.”

According to "20 USC Sec. 3403," the DoE is prohibited from “any direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum program of instruction, administration, or personnel of any educational institution, school, or school system.” The DoE acknowledges this, adding that “the establishment of schools and colleges, the development of curricula, the setting of requirements for enrollment and graduation -- these are responsibilities handled by the various states and communities, as well as by public and private organizations of all kinds, not by the U.S. Department of Education.”

All of this might as well be history, folks. The DoE’s 1980 budget of $14 billion skyrocketed to a 2009 budget of $140.5 billion. Its appetite for power has surpassed all intents and purposes. Its top official is a gunslinger, swaggering his way around the country. And I – the most critical stakeholder in my child’s education – can’t even get a few simple questions answered.

State Governor’s Office:
On July 1, I emailed the Washington State governor’s office, asking for pertinent documentation on the CCS initiative. The legal affairs coordinator replied, sending me a heavily redacted document and a May 20 letter from the State Board of Education that had encouraged the governor to participate. One pertinent document was exempted from my request, due to “Executive Privilege.”

On July 11, I sent follow-up questions and a request for the exempted document. I received that document and was directed to Senior Policy Advisor Judy Hartmann for answers to my questions. I’ve twice requested a telephone appointment with Ms. Hartmann, but so far have been unsuccessful.

The exempted document is a confidential Decision Brief from Ms. Hartmann, having to do with a Memorandum of Agreement on the CCS initiative. The Brief indicates that by May 15, our governor had already decided to participate. (Therefore, the SBE’s May 20 letter, encouraging the governor to sign the MOA, was dated at least five days after her decision.) But the most interesting part about the Decision Brief is this:

“Federal standards adoption. While the standards are being developed by states, CCSSO/NGA believe federal money – Race To The Top - to support this work is appropriate as well as taking the next step to developing common assessments. Discussion: The MOA does not address the possibility of federal adoption of the standards. As you know, some in Congress are looking at this issue.
Race To The Top funds. There is the possibility that one of the criteria for participation in Race To The Top funds will be participating in the Common Standards project.”(At that point, with federal adoption of the standards and federal money contingent on participation in the CCS initiative, they might as well stuff "20 USC Sec. 3403" in the shredder. )

All states need to do is say no to this siren call. On July 24, our governor met with President Obama and Sec. Duncan in Washington, DC. At home the next day, the governor reportedly said that for a chance to “win” Race to the Top money, legislators “may need to talk about teacher evaluation, teacher pay and what the state is doing for struggling schools that are not getting better.”

State Board of Education:
The minutes from the May 14-15 meeting of the Washington State Board of Education note the board members’ decision to send the governor a supportive letter about the CCS initiative, but the agenda for that meeting didn’t mention their intent to discuss it. Therefore, the public wouldn’t have known.

I asked the SBE executive assistant to tell me which came first – the governor’s decision or the SBE’s May 20 letter. She would say only that the letter was “in support of” the governor’s decision. She eventually referred me and my questions to the governor and OSPI’s public disclosure officer (PDO).

Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction:
OSPI’s PDO, a polite and helpful person, says OSPI will provide me with pertinent documents a month from now, during the last half of August. My questions were referred to Superintendent Randy Dorn. I haven’t heard from him, but on July 14, I was notified that Deputy Superintendent Alan Burke would respond in 7-14 days.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices:
Council of Chief State School Officers:
Achieve, Inc.:
I sent emails to these three organizations July 11 and July 20. The NGA and the CCSSO haven’t responded. After the July 20 email, Achieve referred me to the CCSSO.

To recap:

The DoE refused my questions. I persisted until someone agreed to answer them.
The governor’s office sent me documents but hasn’t answered my questions.
The SBE sent me documents, then referred my questions elsewhere.
OSPI will send me documents late in August, but has yet to answer questions.
The NGA and CCSSO haven’t acknowledged my existence, much less answered questions.
Achieve, Inc. declined to answer questions, referring me elsewhere.Welcome to your new paradigm, folks. Parents are not the “stakeholders” that matter to these bureaucrats. They behave as if we don’t know anything and have nothing to contribute. They seem to think we should sit down, shut up and stop bothering the true professionals. We are not supposed to take notice of their obvious disregard for inconvenient laws and policies.
This message is coming through loud and clear, and I reject it completely.

The questions I’m asking are reasonable and not difficult. The tactics illustrated thus far allow a deeply flawed process to move forward until it appears to have enough momentum where it can’t be stopped. But it can be stopped if we speak up, ask the hard questions, refuse to be diverted, stand tall in defense of the Constitution and the laws and policies of the land, demand that government agencies stay in their proper lane, fight for our children’s education, and refuse to give the government an open checkbook for poorly defined programs.

Yes, we can.


Please note: The information in this post is copyrighted. The proper citation is:
Rogers, L. (July, 2009). "Federal control expands despite the rules." Retrieved (date) from the Betrayed Web site: http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailing.blogspot.com/

This article was published July 28, 2009, at EducationNews.org at http://ednews.org/articles/federal-control-expands-despite-the-rules-.html

CCS: Secretive, expensive and wrong

In May, Washington State Gov. Chris Gregoire quietly joined most of the governors in signing a memorandum of agreement in support of a Common Core Standards effort (CCS). This effort – really a “movement” – is creating national education standards in mathematics and language arts. I asked for documentation on Gov. Gregoire's decision, and some of what I received was heavily redacted. One critical document wasn’t sent to me because it’s “exempt” from my request.

Now I’m really curious.

The CCS movement was initiated by the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices (NGA Center) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). The first stage (the national standards) is well under way. The second stage will “develop and implement” national assessments. Also mentioned in the NGA/CCSSO's memorandum of agreement (MOA) are textbooks, digital media, curricula, professional development and policy changes – all to be variously aligned, ensured, developed, implemented, or evaluated by “participating states.”

The concept of national standards isn’t new, but this particular movement is. The partnership between CCSSO, the NGA Center, and Achieve, Inc. was announced Sept. 9, 2008. On Dec. 19, a wish list of five “transformative steps” was announced. Step 1: “Upgrade state standards by adopting a common core of internationally benchmarked standards in math and language arts for grades K-12.”
Step 2: “Leverage states’ collective influence to ensure textbooks, digital media, curricula and assessments are aligned to internationally benchmarked standards.”

From Dec. 19, things went quickly (and quietly). On June 1, the NGA/CCSSO publicly announced the intent to develop national standards. By then, most states had already signed the NGA/CCSSO’s memorandum, reportedly having been given a May 8 deadline. The movement’s leaders refused to announce until at least July the members of the “national validation committee” or the “standards development group.” A July 1 press release finally released some names but also said “the Work Group's deliberations will be confidential throughout the process.”

Education Secretary Arne Duncan is supporting this movement with $350 million. He said so in a June 15 press release (seemingly his first on this topic). It must seem like pocket change to him – over a few months, he’s been doling out an extra $44 billion for public education. Meanwhile, the MOA signed by the governors says the “federal role” in the movement is to provide for: Revision and alignment of “existing federal education laws”; “greater flexibility in the use of existing federal funds”; and funding for the following:

• the writing and implementation of the standards
• the development of “common” assessments
• a “revised accountability structure”
• teacher and principal “professional development”
• “other common core standards over time”
• “a research agenda”

Wow. This is what happened in 1999. One minute there wasn’t a national program; the next, it was already signed, sealed and expensive. It makes me nervous.

• Influence: The more centralized the decision-making, the less influence parents have. Already, we have little influence beyond voting with our feet. In a national program, everything is vetted from far away and by committees of strangers.
• Secrecy: Leaders and participants haven’t been exactly forthcoming with names and details. Parents aren’t asked for opinions, consent or votes. The MOA said leaders would meet in an “open, inclusive, and efficient process” to develop end-of-high-school expectations – but it also set a target date of July 1, just one month after the movement was announced to the public.
• Cost: I’ve seen no estimates of costs to taxpayers in dollars, personnel, resources, benefits and expenses. What happens to current contracts, textbooks, funding programs, and assessments? State leaders predict this movement will result in decreased education costs, but I predict exponentially greater costs and more layers of $100,000 Ph.D.s at district, state and federal levels.
• Accountability: I fret over accountability to the public, especially considering the secrecy thus far. Who reviews these standards? What are their backgrounds? Where is the public in this? Who determines the efficacy of the movement?
• Outcome: The MOA says the standards will be “research and evidence-based,” “grounded in empirical research” and will “draw on best practices.” Uh huh. Much of the research and evidence in American public education is flawed, insufficient, biased, and weak as a newborn kitten. I want to see this evidence.

Despite any concerns, nearly all of the governors signed on. I wrote to Gov. Gregoire, asking for answers. One of her employees sent a copy of a letter from the State Board of Education dated May 20 that urged her to support the CCS movement. It didn’t take much urging, I guess. On May 20, copies of the MOA – signed by Gov. Gregoire and Superintendent Randy Dorn – were forwarded to interested parties. But not to the public. Neither of them issued a press release.

I was also sent a copy of an April 24 “Executive Policy Office Weekly Update,” in which the CCS movement is discussed. About two-thirds of this is redacted (blacked out so I can’t read it). I did NOT get a copy of the “Governor’s Decision Document” – dated May 15, 2009, and written by the governor’s executive policy advisor. This two-page briefing document was “exempted” due to “Executive Privilege.”

(What rotten luck. It’s probably the one I wanted.)

Whenever I see a “closed door” like this, I want to open it, see what’s behind it. Public education is full of doors that are closed, locked, stuck, too monolithic to budge, moved to a different building, stuffed in a dusty box in the backroom, or just wiped right out of existence. What do I do with this door? A lawyer stands behind it. The redactions and exemptions could be a matter of national security, or they might just be hiding Gov. Gregoire’s grocery list. Who knows? I want this information because the national standards movement is wrong-headed right out of the gate.

1. Public education is a state responsibility. Even the U.S. Department of Education acknowledges this: “Education is primarily a state and local responsibility in the U.S. In creating the Department of Education, Congress made clear its intention that the secretary of education and other Department officials be prohibited from exercising “’any direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum program of instruction, administration, or personnel of any educational institution, school, or school system.’ (20 USC 3403) The establishment of schools and colleges, the development of curricula, the setting of requirements for enrollment and graduation - these are responsibilities handled by states and communities, as well as by public and private organizations, not by the U.S. Department of Education.”

   The U.S. Department of Education has already overstepped its role in public education. Despite constant assurances that the CCS movement is “state-led,” it has long-term federal taxpayer money and federal fingerprints all over it.
   

2. The last set of “national standards” – from the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics – plunged the country into a mathematical Dark Ages from which we have yet to emerge, and where we will remain until the education establishment once again believes in directly teaching real content.
3. There is no avenue here for input from the real stakeholders: Parents and students.

I’ve sent more questions to Washington State’s Board of Education, the governor, the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, the National Governors Association, and the U.S. Department of Education. I’ll let you know what they say.


Please note: The information in this post is copyrighted. The proper citation is:
Rogers, L. (July, 2009). "CCS: Secretive, expensive and wrong." Retrieved (date) from the Betrayed Web site: http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailing.blogspot.com/

This article was published July 14, 2009, on Education News at: http://ednews.org/articles/common-core-standards-secretive-expensive-and-wrong.html

Why administrators don't listen

“In the name of God, stop a moment, cease your work, look around you.”
-- Leo Tolstoy, author of “War and Peace”


A common complaint among math advocates is that the education establishment continually rejects pertinent data and valid research on how reform mathematics curricula are deeply, fatally flawed.

“It’s like watching a completely preventable traffic accident,” I’ve said. “How do they not see it? Why won't they listen to reason?”

No advocate has the answer, although there are suspicions. Some of the possibilities I’ve heard include these:

• Kickbacks from publishers
• Overly friendly relationships with publishers
• Ignorance
• Stupidity
• Herd mentality
• Indoctrination
• Ego
• Habit
• Personal comfort
• Political philosophy
• Ennui

Spokane Public Schools persists with its reform math curricula despite all contrary evidence from the district, state and nation – and despite distressing results (a scary, black hole of dropouts, remediation and failed tests). The district must have some very compelling research on its side - research that math advocates haven’t seen.

In April and May, I asked district administrators for the research and data that support their continued use of reform curricula. Despite several formal requests for public information and a friendly phone call, I’ve received no data and no research. I was told that supporting research was tossed with yesterday’s meatloaf. No, I was actually told it wasn’t kept on hand. (The meatloaf is still there.) I don’t know why the research wouldn’t be kept because administrators keep referring to it (as in “research shows” and “according to the research”). Instead, I was given the names of three organizations and two types of tests, and I was invited to the central office to look over their “great number of materials on the subject of effective instruction in mathematics.” Technically, this is not “data” or “research.” Technically, I think this is called “skating.”

You’d think they’d at least try to have a good excuse. I would give points for creativity, like: “It’s lost in the Bermuda Triangle.” “It was destroyed by a magic bullet from a grassy knoll.” “Jimmy Hoffa had it with him when he disappeared.” “We were hoping Geraldo Rivera would find it in Al Capone’s vault.”

If the data and research don’t support these curricula, and the entire nation has found that a steady diet of reform leads to math incompetence and cataracts in laboratory rats … what is the real reason for their continued use? Could it be aliens? Think about it. If aliens came to Earth and wanted to take down America without firing a shot, this would be the ticket: Infiltrate public education, teach the children to think conceptually about nothing, and then pretend to fret as the country falls to its knees. It’s the perfect crime.

Look, I’m just saying it’s a possibility. Otherwise … well, choose your preferred explanation.

Leo Tolstoy reportedly said this about people who refuse to listen:

“I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives.”(Well, OK, but I still think some of them might be aliens.)

Meanwhile, we math advocates manage to keep each other going. We disagree about many things, but our dissent is generally friendly and respectful. It helps to keep us honest and thoughtful. We agree on one major point: American public-school math instruction is a blight upon the land. It’s a crater, a crime, a sin against the children.

It takes a strong stomach to know the truth of how bad it is, and still speak politely with administrators who keep saying the most ridiculous things. It’s tough to keep pushing, to keep trying, and to somehow avoid sinking into despair. When we talk with district decision-makers, we often find their eyes are glassy. They’ve breathed in the smoke and mirrors and can’t seem to hear anything but the twaddle from curriculum coordinators.

Tolstoy also reportedly said this:

“The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.”

Education’s decision-makers appear to be “firmly persuaded” – many will do whatever curriculum coordinators tell them to do. So we troop over to the curriculum coordinators, and we find they’re certain, too. They don’t care what we bring to the table, even if it’s the best information, the most pertinent research and the most brilliant arguments. It’s their table – not ours – and they’ll decide (thank you very much), what happens with it. Our evidence is swept off the table onto the floor. They walk over it on their way out. Later, it’s disposed of in an environmentally friendly way.

Sitting through certain interviews and meetings, listening to the idiocy that passes for argument (for example, “How do we know a 45% pass rate isn’t good? It all depends on where that group began”), I develop headaches, jaw aches and an upset stomach. I’ve had dark moments where I felt that nothing would ever improve, administrators would never listen, and parents should just grab their babies and run for the hills, as far away from the aliens as possible.

The obliviousness of the education establishment is impressive. The deceit and the covering up of the children’s reality are immoral, if not technically criminal. I’ve sat at my computer and blanched at the cheerful destruction of so many children’s futures.

Meanwhile, since 1989, the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) happily became “relevant” as they pushed their national standards. Across the country, school districts happily spent truckloads of taxpayer dollars chasing after every mangy, stray-dog program, and Texas Instruments (TI) and textbook publishers happily made enough money to wallpaper the moon at least twice in pretty thousand-dollar bills.

It’s all happening again. The National Governors Association (NGA) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) are the “new black,” pushing for new national standards (because it worked so well the last time). TI continues to deliver fancy calculators to wee tots, and textbook publishers and the College Board pant and salivate at being in on the ground floor of new national curricula and assessments.

Math advocates weren’t invited to this table, either, but who cares? I could sit at that table, lie down on that table, take off my clothes and dance the fandango on that table, and all of the deals would still be made – right next to my sweaty feet.

Math advocate Mike Miller said: “A culture that embraces purposeful perversion will be more resistant to both exposure and change.”

What if the purposeful perversion affects children’s futures and the stability of the country? At what point does it become evil?

Maybe the public-education establishment is already there. Maybe if we look up from our work long enough, we’ll see this for what it really is: An ongoing bloodless takeover by aliens.

Mark my words.



Please note: The information in this post is copyrighted. The proper citation is:
Rogers, L. (July, 2009). "Why administrators don't listen." Retrieved (date) from the Betrayed Web site: http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailing.blogspot.com/



This article also was published July 5, 2009, on Education News at http://ednews.org/articles/why-administrators-dont-listen-.html.

Students learn by being taught

“How do you feel about putting students in AP classes for the exposure, even if they don't have the skills to succeed?”


I feel it’s a really stupid idea. It’s good to challenge students and have them reach beyond their comfort zone. But if they don’t have the skills to succeed in a class, why would we put them in the class? Unfortunately, this is policy in many public schools. Students supposedly benefit from “exposure” to material that’s way over their head. It’s thought to be OK if they don’t pass the class or even take the exams. I’ve been told several times: “They’ll learn just by being there.”

But what do they learn?

Administrators with an overabundance of training in education theory keep making perfectly obvious things murky. They claim, for example, that placing ill-prepared students in advanced math classes is helpful. They say it’s about “equity” and “opportunity.” It’s about “challenging” them. It’s "good" for their self-esteem. The policy also can make money for the schools, look good on spreadsheets and serve to mask the nature of what’s really going on in the classrooms.

But behind the mask, there is devastation.

Young children enjoy math and science. In America, this enthusiasm gets squished right out of many of them. By 4th grade, they’ve changed their minds forever. I place the blame squarely on reform mathematics. Reform math curricula deemphasize traditional algorithms; instead, students learn multiple “alternate” ways to solve problems. And “discovery” teaching models have them working in groups or pairs to teach concepts to each other.

“Traditional methods don’t work anymore,” parents are told. “Our kids need 21st-century skills.”
(Personally, I think that phrase is code for “Our kids need TI84 calculators.”)

Traditional math does work – every time. It helped build America. It doesn’t have a shelf life where it might curdle or grow moldy. It’s needed as much in the 21st century as it was in the 14th century. It isn’t one of “many acceptable alternatives.” For most students, it’s the best, most efficient, most effective method for learning mathematics. It’s necessary in college, businesses, trades, and STEM careers. It should be emphasized – taught first and then practiced. Yet, thanks to reform, most public-school children don’t become proficient in the arithmetic skills that are critical to their future.

When these children struggle in math, they might be given TI calculators to take the place of arithmetic. Instead of practicing skills, they might get lessons in how to pass standardized tests. When they’re bored, they might get extra sheets of busy work. When they’re frustrated, they might be sent into the hallway where they can’t bother anyone. Some are delivered, nicely wrapped, to behavioral or special education groups. And regardless of what anyone learns, nearly all will go to the next grade in the fall.

This is called “social promotion,” best defined in this way: “Students can fail the entire grade, learn less than nothing, actually fall farther behind than where they began, basically become mindless amoebas just taking up desk space and annoying their classmates and teachers – and they’ll still be passed to the next grade so that room can be made for the next class.”

Social promotion could work if students received tutoring or remedial help over the summer, but the vast majority is neglected entirely. The next fall, many are tagged – either with a “behavioral” or “special ed” tag, or perhaps just with a roll of the eyes, an averted gaze, and a “You won’t believe the class I have this year!” These kids continue to lurk in hallways, “special” classes and detention. They’re expected to work cooperatively with classmates to reinvent thousands of years of math – on their fingers, and with molding clay and pipe cleaners. Day, after day, after day. Plop on the forehead. Plop on the forehead… drip… drip…drip…

Since students have no training in special education or child psychology, and they lack the “professional development” teachers get, they fail to see how all of this is good for them. By 4th grade, they begin to tune out.

“I hate math,” I’ve heard 9-year-olds say. “I’m no good in math.” “My Dad can’t understand this.” “I can’t wait for recess.”

In middle school, there is usually more reform math. Behavior problems are blamed on society, “free will,” short attention spans, video games, parents, hormones or a sense of entitlement.
(I have heard all of these.)

When they get to high school, students are encouraged to take honors math and Advanced Placement math classes. The entire point of AP classes is to earn college credit while still in high school. Most universities and colleges won’t give credit for AP math classes unless students pass AP exams with a score of 3 or better. But high school students are encouraged to take AP classes even if they lack the requisite math skills.

“Let them eat cake,” administrators tell parents. No, I’m just being silly. Parents are told, “Students learn just by being there.”

As the students flounder in these classes, whatever bare shreds of dignity and self-esteem they have left are battered to death by a daily pounding of material that’s over their head. Their worst fears are realized: “Maybe I’m really not capable in math,” they fret. “Geez. Maybe I am stupid.”

A few struggle through the classes, thus fueling the administrator view that the policy works. Most sink into apathy or outright rebellion. In Spokane, 808 more AP exams were flunked in 2008 than in 2000. These flunkings don’t take into account the AP students who didn’t take AP exams or the AP students who dropped out of school altogether. (Currently, up to a third of our students will drop out before graduation.)

After they’re sufficiently tortured, high school seniors are eventually allowed to graduate without requisite math and science knowledge because retaining them isn’t “fair” to them.
(As if graduating them without the necessary skills is fair to them.)

In college, most want to run as far and as fast as they can from mathematics, but they need some form of college math to get a degree. Up to 95% test into remedial math. Many require remediation in arithmetic.

The bad news continues. College math classes go fast. There is little time to practice. Some students have to take remedial classes more than once in order to pass. As they struggle, give up, or drop out – they’re blamed yet again. I watched students drop like flies from a remedial algebra class, and the instructor explained it this way: “Students just don’t want to learn.”

Instead of becoming the engineers, mathematicians, scientists and tech specialists this country desperately needs, these students head into other fields that don’t require a whole lot of math classes. Like education.

And thus, the circle is complete – a betrayal of trust from elementary school all the way through college. Think how much these students could have learned, had they been in the right class with the right material and an efficient teaching approach.

Doesn’t it make you angry?

There are a few specks of sanity out there, but not many. Most students don’t have access to the specks. They’re pushed, prodded, poked, analyzed, assessed and – ultimately – blamed. Many give up, tune out, and move beyond our reach forever.

What to do about it? Well, here’s the good news. The easiest, most productive thing we can do to fix remediation rates, dropout rates, enrollment drops, and the entire “math problem” is to just start teaching the children properly. It’s easy. “Obvious,” you could say. But the education establishment is – for the most part – unwilling. Proponents of reform mathematics and discovery teaching models appear determined to believe in them, despite all contrary evidence – until they die. Parents must do it then – find a way to provide their children with the needed math skills.

Math doesn’t have to be torturous. It isn’t scary or bad; it’s logical and interesting. It’s a helpful tool. Taught properly – directly, with a logical progression of skills and time for practice – most of the children will learn it.

And I promise you – they’ll take it from there.


Please note: The information in this post is copyrighted. The proper citation is:
Rogers, L. (June, 2009). "Students learn by being taught." Retrieved (date) from the Betrayed Web site: http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailing.blogspot.com/

This article was published June 25, 2009, at EducationNews.org at http://ednews.org/articles/students-learn-by-being-taught.html

National standards, national curriculum dangerous

After a 2007 U.S. Department of Education (DoE) report indicated differences among the various states as to what constitutes academic “proficiency,” Sec. of Education Margaret Spellings sent a letter to The Washington Post to express her concerns that some people might be tempted to press for a national curriculum (2007c).

That would be “unprecedented and unwise,” Sec. Spellings wrote. Not only are national standards not necessarily “synonymous” with high standards, they might actually lower the standards while doing little “to address the persistent achievement gap.” Additionally, she noted, forcing one curriculum on all 50 states would contradict both tradition and the American Constitution, which places most responsibilities for education in the hands of state and local governments and administrators.

“They design the curriculum and pay 90 percent of the bills,” Sec. Spellings said. “Neighborhood schools deserve neighborhood leadership, not dictates from bureaucrats thousands of miles away.”

Ah, the irony. Some see NCLB as a “dictate” from “bureaucrats thousands of miles away.” But the comment got me thinking. Would national standards or curricula result in equity? Would they be good for students? Would they be good for the country?

A few years ago, Washington State administrators floated the possibility of developing statewide mathematics curricula. State legislators took the first step in 2007 by requiring the superintendent to choose math and science curricula that would align with the soon-to-be revised learning standards. The legislation reassured districts they wouldn’t be required to adopt the curricula, but it left the legal door open:

“However, the statewide accountability plan adopted by the state board of education … shall recommend conditions under which school districts should be required to use one of the recommended curricula. … ” (“Certification,” 2007, p.3-4).

Washington State’s standards rewrite and curricula assessments did go the way I wanted them to go – toward more traditional content. At the moment, as our children continue to choke on reform curricula, it’s tempting to wish that districts would be forced by law to adopt state-selected curricula. But the concept gives me pause.

What if the revised standards had instead continued to emphasize reform math? What if the state-selected curricula had all been reform? What if proponents of reform mathematics managed to fill every administrative and legislative seat and nothing was the way I wanted it to be? Reform could happen all over again. It probably will.

Districts must always be able to choose alternatives. Parents and students must always be able to compare procedures and results against something from the outside. Dissent is necessary to keeping any system honest and strong. That’s why I’m worried about current trends toward national education standards and a national curriculum.

National Standards:

In June 2009, the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, and the Council of Chief State School Officers – in partnership with Achieve, Inc.; ACT and the College Board – announced an initiative to develop national learning standards (“Forty-nine,” 2009). Washington State is one of 49 states and territories to have already signed on to this initiative – despite the $1.6 million Washington just spent revising its own K-12 mathematics standards.

This is purportedly a “grass-roots” initiative, but Sec. of Education Arne Duncan and the Department of Education reportedly support the initiative (Levine, 2009). How “grass-roots” can it possibly be?

Any concerns are already too late. Decisions have been made. People have been chosen. The initiative was formally announced June 1, 2009 -- along with plans to release “college and career ready standards” in July 2009. That’s either really fast work, or they’ve been on this for a while. Quietly. Behind the scenes. In secret. I’ve seen little about this in the media. I can find nothing about it on the DoE Web site. Washington State signed on to the initiative with barely a whisper to the public. This has not been a particularly public process.

Who are these people? I’d like to know their backgrounds and get a sense of their leanings. The NGA declined to give out names until July. The San Francisco Chronicle called that “a wise decision," adding that "A truly open process would result in the experts being lobbied by countless interest groups, and – given the still-controversial nature of national standards – it could torpedo the plan altogether.”

Wow. A newspaper is championing secrecy. So much for the fourth estate.

Perhaps a truly open process would result in people finding out which special interests are already lobbying these “experts,” or maybe it would uncover some inappropriate backgrounds for some of the “experts.” A truly open process could indeed torpedo the plan altogether, as perhaps it should.

The NGA press release says there will be an “expert validation committee” “composed of nationally and internationally recognized and trusted education experts who are neutral to – and independent of – the process.” The words sound so good. Expert, recognized, trusted, neutral, and independent. Then again, we always hear those sorts of words. In 1999, the DoE assured us that reform curricula were “exemplary,” chosen by a team of mathematics and education “experts.” Look how that turned out. I doubt many “education experts” are actually “neutral” or “independent.”

Hey, I have some questions. What happens if Washington’s learning standards are weakened again? How will parents know? Against what will we compare them? How will contrary philosophies and commercial products survive – competing as they’ll be with well-connected organizations and companies, exceptionally savvy marketers, and the U.S. Department of Education?

National Curriculum:

Reportedly, Sec. Duncan also supports a national education curriculum (Levine, 2009). Again, as of June 2009, I can find nothing about it on the DoE Web site, but in May, while touting Tough Choices and Tough Times (two pilot programs that could form the basis for a DoE program called Race to the Top), Sec. Duncan reportedly said that not having a national curriculum is “crazy.” Steven Levine of Business Week writes:

“Both Duncan and the Tough Choices members steer carefully around the phrase "national education" … Yet that’s clearly where the Administration is headed. Duncan wants to nudge the winning states toward agreeing on rigorous, shared curricula that could spread across the country. ‘The idea of 50 states doing their own thing I think is crazy,’ Duncan says. Race to the Top is a way ‘to say to a set of states, 'You lead the national conversation. You do this.'’”

Perhaps if I were the author or publisher of K-12 curricula, or I sold commercial products related to education, such as calculators, for example, I’d be watching these developments closely. I’d want to be involved behind the scenes, working with allies and friends to sway things to my best advantage. It would just be good business, right?

On the Texas Instruments (TI) Web site, I found multiple links to papers from the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). Coincidentally, the CCSSO is a partner in the aforementioned national standards initiative. The CCSSO and TI also have been partners for a while. One TI link is to a joint CCSSO/TI paper from 2005 titled “Standards-Based Foundations for Mathematics Education: Standards, Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment in Mathematics.” The paper says:

“In an effort to explore new ways of improving mathematics education in middle and high schools, the Council of Chief State School Officers and Texas Instruments formed a Technology Research and Development Advisory Committee (“R&D Committee”) in the spring of 2004. This R&D Committee, consisting of state deputy superintendents or commissioners, district superintendents, and CCSSO staff, met in April 2004 to examine ways in which business and education can work together to build models that will enhance mathematical literacy” (Stumbo & Lusi, 2005a).

Another TI link is to a joint CCSSO/TI paper from 2005 titled “Why Isn’t the Mathematics We Learned Good Enough for Today’s Students?” The paper says:

“This partnership will investigate the influences on mathematics education and develop recommendations for effective state actions to lead to improved student performance in mathematics” (Stumbo & Lusi, 2005b).

Hmm. This national standards initiative is looking less “grass-roots” all of the time. I’m sad to tell you that’s not all. Remember the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM)? This group ushered in the “Standards” on which reform math programs claim to be based. Its former presidents have written or helped develop several of the reform curricula we have now. In a June 2009 press release, the NCTM speaks glowingly about the prospect of national standards. It also speaks hopefully about a national curriculum.

(Oo. Just got a cold shiver.)

The NCTM takes care – as does the NGA – to specify that national initiatives would be “voluntary.” But there is very little about the standards and curricula we have in Spokane that’s “voluntary.” The only “voluntary” part is where parents can voluntarily leave the district if we don’t like it.

So far.

At the moment, parents have the right to reject any part of their state’s standards or district curriculum and teach their children at home. Occasionally, some folks try to take away parents’ right to do this. Sec. Duncan supports charter schools, but what if the push for national standards and curricula weakens parents’ right to choose other kinds of alternatives? What if the national support for one curriculum drives other curricula (perhaps curricula preferred by parents) out of business? Already the parent voice is weak – even at the district level. How strong could it be at a national level? Which of us could be heard over the clamor of well-heeled interests such as the NSF, the NCTM, the Dana Center, the NGA, Achieve, Texas Instruments, and the College Board?

I worry that, ultimately, standards, tests and curricula will become streamlined in a happy little U.S.-government-led, taxpayer-funded row. Pretend scores will rise, certain businesses will make tons of money, and administrators will be happy, happy, happy – but the devastating gaps in what our children know will just be better hidden from sight. Any time the doors close and shades are drawn, I start wondering: “Where is the Accountability?” Even if these shadowy faces manage to create perfect national standards and curricula that allow our children to rise to the top of the international food chain, they – and their creations – won’t last forever. What happens then? Once we have national standards and curricula, we will never ever get rid of them.

State, district and especially parent rights must be preserved – for the people. Our children depend on educators to provide them with a proper education, but their minds and their futures are our ultimate responsibility. Parents must take back the reins of their children’s education. They must go beyond the revolving door of standards and curricula, beyond the lame-duck standardized tests, beyond the parsed and handpicked statistics. They must go beyond the teachers, beyond administrators and beyond the useless school boards. They must find a way to determine what their children should know versus what they do know, take steps to fill in the gaps, and stay on top of things until their children graduate.

Based on what I’ve seen and heard, an increasing number of parents are doing exactly that.


Please note: The information in this post is copyrighted. The proper citation is:
Rogers, L. (June, 2009). "National standards, national curriculum dangerous." Retrieved (date) from the Betrayed Web site: http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailing.blogspot.com/

This article was published June 11, 2009, on EducationNews.org at http://ednews.org/articles/national-standards-national-curriculum-dangerous.html

Board vote good for future business

Some things are so outrageously ridiculous, the only way to handle them is through satire.

Like, for example, at a May 27 board meeting for Spokane Public Schools, board members voted to spend another $90,000 of taxpayer money on materials from the same failed reform curricula we have now. For a few tense moments, I was worried they wouldn’t, but at 11 p.m., they came through for me.

To quote a 5th-grade teacher who spoke on behalf of the proposed supplements: “Yay!”

Some people see reform math as a problem, but for me, it’s the solution. For one thing, it gives me something to do. I now spend 4-11 hours a day on math: Tutoring my daughter in actual math; taking college math classes so I can tutor her through high school; keeping up with developments at the state and national levels; and communicating every day with dozens of concerned parents and advocates. It’s a lot to do, which is good because otherwise, I would just sit around like the illiterate slob I am, eating Twinkies and playing video games.

But mostly, when I finish my math classes, I’ll have a HUGE pool of clients for my future tutoring business. The May 27 vote was VERY good for me personally.

I have to say it was touch and go that night. I thought when a cardiologist and a retired mathematician spoke eloquently for better math instruction, it might have swayed the vote. Luckily, most of the BM weren’t listening.

(BM is short for “board members.” What did you think it meant?)

When a local parent spoke about her daughters' struggles with basic math skills – like measurements – I worried again. Not because of the parent’s well-articulated concerns, but because Spokane’s elementary curriculum coordinator, Debbie Oakley, bobbled it and blamed the girls’ struggles on traditional math. How stupid was that? I doubt Spokane's current students have gotten more than a whiff of traditional math in the last 8 years.

Thankfully, the BM just let it go.

I spoke at the meeting, too, pretending I wanted better curricula and offering the board information from state and federal levels. It was all a ruse, part of my master plan. I knew the BM wouldn’t look at the information before the vote, wouldn’t ask me questions about it, wouldn’t even wonder out loud what was in the package. And they didn’t. President Rocco Treppiedi waved the information away to a side table where it sat like the lump of dog doo it was. (Some of the BM might even have held their noses.)

Ms. Oakley almost wrecked it again when she said, “There’s just nothing out there that aligns better to the new math standards.” How stupid was that? Not one of Spokane’s main curricula is ON the final lists of recommended curricula. Everything aligns better than they do. Two weren’t even on the preliminary lists – and those were lists drawn up by people who support reform. How bad must reform curricula be when supporters of reform don’t support them?

But the BM just let it go.

Oh yeah, and then one intelligent board member challenged Ms. Oakley on one of the proposed materials, saying it doesn’t do much of what she said it does and doesn’t seem to be necessary. Ms. Oakley had no defense for that, no support, no explanation, no clarification. I might have heard her mutter, “The dog ate my homework,” but that might have been the 5th-grade teacher behind me, who left her seat beside the curriculum coordinators to advocate for the proposed materials. The teacher's entire argument consisted of, “Come to my house and I’ll give you Brownies.” No, I think she said, “Come to my classroom and see what we’re doing.” And she took a swipe at me, which I did not appreciate. I thought, “Hey, don’t swipe at me! We’re allies! On the same side! We’re both doing this for the kids! You have them muddle in herds to teach themselves box and whisker plots, and then I’ll charge their families a lot of money to tutor them in arithmetic and algebra. We could be a great team!”

Yay!

Come to think of it, the person talking about dogs and homework might have been Rick Biggerstaff, Spokane’s secondary curriculum coordinator. He couldn’t remember who wrote the national standards on which he claimed Washington’s new standards are based. I offered him a suggestion, and – without looking at me – he muttered something that sounded like, "That could be it." Or, he might have said, “Shut up, you inconsequential idiot parent person, you dog-face daughter of a wallaby.”

If he'd said that, I would have said, “Look, don’t call me that. We’re allies. You LOVE Core-Plus Mathematics. 'LOVE it!' you said. And I’m going to LOVE the money I’m going to make in my future tutoring business. We’ll go great together, like peanut butter and food allergies.”

Mr. Biggerstaff nearly gave away the farm when he said other countries (almost all of which do better in math than America does) are perplexed at our "math wars," and they say, “What is America doing?” I was afraid the BM would laugh out loud at the unintended irony. Other countries do look at America, at how we teach mathematics, and they do say, “Woo-hoo! More jobs for us!”

But the BM didn’t note the irony, and my future tutoring business was saved again.

(I didn't even mind it when Mr. Biggerstaff was rude to me. When I left to thank the mathematician for coming, he rushed out behind us and interrupted me so he could shake the man’s hand. He never once looked in my direction or apologized for interrupting. My grandma always said, “You can tell a lot about folks by their manners,” but I know Mr. Biggerstaff is much more important than I am.)

I was glad I could crawl my way home at 11:30 p.m. and tell my husband the evening wasn’t a complete waste, as he had predicted.

For one thing, I met the cardiologist and the mathematician. I also got to see Ms. Oakley and Mr. Biggerstaff in action – an invaluable experience. And I totally figured out how to game the system. These people now think I’m opposed to Spokane’s ridiculously flawed reform math curricula. They see it as their turf, not mine. The harder I rally people to fight against it, the harder they’ll fight to defend it. It’s just human nature for bureaucrats and other uncivilized groups. This can only help me.

I’ll say: Please reject these failed curricula. And they’ll continue to say, “No."
I’ll say: Please just look at this material. They’ll say, “No.”
I’ll say: Please learn something about mathematics. “No.”
Please help me figure out a way to tutor these children in arithmetic. “No.”
I’ll do it for FREE. “No.”
Please wait on voting until you read this. “No, no, no.”
Please show me some infinitesimal sign of respect. “Well, sure, whatever-your-name is. Come back anytime.”

To the parents, I apologize. I’m sorry you’ll have to pay huge bucks to re-educate your children. I’m sorry that (unless they’re in the one-third of students who will drop out of high school before they graduate) they’ll have to spend several semesters in remedial math classes in college (which many will fail). I’m sorry that most of them will hate math for the rest of their lives and run as far away from it as they can. But that’s the way the box-and-whisker plot bounces. I have to eat, too. If you’re so mad, start your own tutoring business. It’s not like there won’t be enough work to go around. It would also give you a good reason to stay in your school district, unlike the 2,000+ quitters who bailed out of Spokane Public Schools over the last few years.

I have big dreams that require ill-educated students. Together, we can turn this very real and very serious math problem into a real business opportunity. With reform curricula in our corner, we’re totally in the catbird seat.

My new motto is: “Too bad for the little birdies, but darn good for the cats.”

Yay!




Please note: The information in this post is copyrighted. The proper citation is:
Rogers, L. (May, 2009). "Board vote good for future business." Retrieved (date) from the Betrayed Web site: http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailing.blogspot.com/

This article was published May 31, 2009, on EducationNews.org at http://ednews.org/articles/school-board-vote-good-for-business.html

FACT: Spokane refuses to replace reform curricula

On Wed., May 27, Spokane Public Schools employees are slated to address the school board about proposed teaching materials for mathematics. The materials reportedly are a continuation of one of the three main math curricula already in place. The three main curricula are:

• Investigations in Number, Data, and Space
  
• Connected Mathematics Project (CMP)
  
• Core-Plus Mathematics

These three curricula are “reform,” which means they focus on estimation, group discussions, lots of writing, frequent use of calculators, and multiple ways of solving problems. They downplay the need for practicing skills and also the use of “traditional” procedures and equations. They emphasize constructivist approaches (“discovery”) where students work in groups and on their own to try to teach math to themselves.

They do not focus on practicing the most efficient, most effective algorithms (which are necessary for advancing in math, and needed in college, business and the trades).

Reform curricula have been criticized in the mathematics community for the last 20 years. Two decades ago, people with products to sell ushered in the philosophy behind these curricula, and money continues to drive K-12 math instruction. Texas Instruments, various software developers, textbook publishers and other stakeholders have worked intensively and cooperatively to push reform curricula and attendant supplementary materials and “helpful” tools on an unsuspecting public. The reform approach to math plays a huge role in why America’s math skills have fallen so far behind the rest of the world. America’s businesses, universities and government agencies are forced to draw heavily from other countries for their talent pools.

But many people were not fooled.

• FACT: For years, parents, math teachers, professors, business owners, STEM professionals (science, technology, engineering and math), and math advocates have fought for a more traditional approach to teaching mathematics.
  
• FACT: In 2008, the National Mathematics Advisory Panel called for more traditional content and increased rigor across the nation.
  
• FACT: In 2007, a consultant hired by the Washington State Board of Education (at the behest of the state legislature) assessed Washington’s math standards. The consultant called for major revisions, including a great deal more traditional content, increased rigor, and caution on the use of calculators in the classroom.
  
• FACT: New, more rigorous math standards were developed in Washington State. The state department of education (OSPI), board of education (SBE) and advisory panels used the new standards to compile a list of recommended K-8 math curricula. These curricula use a more traditional approach. Spokane's main math curricula are not on the list.

Meanwhile, Spokane Public Schools has continued to replace one reform curriculum with another. This approach has been an expensive failure.

• FACT: Spokane’s current reform math curricula are heavily supplemented by a long list of expensive materials and by ongoing “professional development” for teachers, “instructional coaches” for teachers, substitute teachers and remedial programs.
  
• FACT: Spokane’s full-time enrollment has dropped by about 2,000 students since 2001 (mostly from the high schools). Administrators predict another drop of 350 this year.
  
• FACT: A 2008 survey of parents who left for a different public school indicated that at least 33% left in whole or in part over the curricula. (The survey didn’t include families who chose a private school.) Spokane’s superintendent said this survey doesn’t tell her anything that “informs” her “decision-making.”
  
• FACT: In 2008, the number of Spokane students passing the 2008 math WASL dropped grade by grade until just 45.9% of 10th graders passed.
  
• FACT: Achieve, Inc. says Washington’s 10th-grade math WASL is based on content that is taught internationally in 6th or 7th grade.
  
• FACT: Washington State has a reported 50% + math remediation rate in college. According to the dean of the math department at Spokane Falls Community College, new students have about an 80% remediation rate for math.
  
• FACT: I've spoken with recent Spokane high school graduates who struggle with basic math skills. They tend to feel dependent on their calculators, to lack number sense, to think they’re bad at math, and to avoid career choices that involve math. Some must take remedial classes in arithmetic. Many must take remedial classes more than once in order to pass.
  
• FACT: In February, Superintendent Nancy Stowell and Bridget Lewis, executive director of Instructional Programs, indicated to the Spokane school board that they don’t know how to fix the math problem.
  
• FACT: In mid-April, I wrote to Ms. Lewis and two of Spokane’s curriculum coordinators. I noted that Spokane’s main math curricula don’t align with the new state math standards and aren’t recommended by the state or by the math advisory panels. I asked why this district is not replacing its inadequate curricula with curricula that better align to the state’s math standards. After my four polite emails and my polite phone call, I haven’t received an answer to this reasonable and not-too-difficult question.

What the students need is the proper tool for the job - better curricula from kindergarten to Grade 12. They need to be taught, rather than being forced to muddle around in groups, trying to teach math to themselves. They need to learn the most efficient method first, rather than being forced to learn several inefficient ways first. They need to be able to practice their math skills so that these skills go into long-term memory and can be easily recalled.

Spokane will not be replacing its inadequate curricula this year. There are plans to shuffle these failed curricula around a bit … like moving a dirty mop around the floor, hoping it will clean better over there. Now, there reportedly are plans to add more materials from two of the failed programs!

• FACT: Better curricula are available. They include proven methods for teaching mathematics to children that have stood the test of time. They align better with the new math standards. They’ve been vetted by OSPI, the SBE and various professionals with strong backgrounds in mathematics.
  
• FACT: Spokane Public Schools is refusing to adopt any of them.

(It's somewhat like watching people willfully cause a traffic accident.)

I'm asking you to attend the May 27 board meeting and ask for the adoption of better math curricula. By law, the board’s meeting time, place and agenda is to be listed here at least 24 hours before the meeting: http://www.spokaneschools.org/Board/MeetingDates.stm

This isn’t a game we're playing. The children's futures are at stake. Parents should not have to supplement the regular program, pay for private school, or teach their children a separate math curriculum at home. They should not have to pay for several remedial college classes. High school graduates should not have to spend several semesters desperately trying to pick up the math they should have learned in K-12. We should expect district employees to do “due diligence” and pay attention to what's being said at the state and federal level relative to mathematics instruction. We should expect the curriculum coordinators to listen when parents ask for something better for their children. Parents should expect to be included in discussions about curricula choices. But in Spokane – despite all contrary evidence – curriculum coordinators persist in supporting and buying teaching materials based on inadequate programs.

If you can't attend the May 27 board meeting, please write to the board and express your views. Ask them to ensure that the district immediately implements curricula that are aligned with the new math standards, to reject the failed reform curricula we have now, and to offer all students the tutoring they need to bring them up in skill to where they should and could have been.

Thank you for standing up to be counted. Please pass on this message to others. Together, we can turn this thing around.



Please note: The information in this post is copyrighted. The proper citation is:
Rogers, L. (May, 2009). "FACT: Spokane refuses to replace reform curricula." Retrieved (date) from the Betrayed Web site: http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailing.blogspot.com/

A version of this article was posted May 23 at ednews.org at http://ednews.org/articles/fact-spokane-refuses-to-replace-reform-curricula.html