Mathematics Education

Under the Guise of Improving #Education #tcot

2012-01-29T09:40:00.001-06:00

Constitutional Conservatives need to press the education this election year.

While everyone is jumping on the Common Core [National] Standards bandwagon, your state is giving up it's constitutional authority to direct education. You are loosing your representation in the process as few elected representatives were involved in the process. Conservative representative that are interested in education seem afraid to question this administration's federal overreach lest they be labeled as saboteurs.

They are not representing constitutional, common sense, converatives by abdicating their responsibility to protect state sovereignty and individual rights.

Posted via email from concernedabouteducation's posterous

US Competitiveness at Risk: Milgram and Stotsky Quoted on #CommonCore

2012-01-22T11:43:00.001-06:00

Proponents say that Common Core "drew on" ideas from abroad, but Milgram and Stotsky spell out the truth in this article.

They state Common Core is not "comparable to the expectation of other leading nations."

As Rep. John Kline of the EdWorkforce Committee said "people often ask what the classroom has in common with the workplace. The answer is fairly simple: both are vital to the economic success of our country and the future prosperity of its people."

Clearly weak math standards inevitably lead to weak science standards. Ze'ev Wurman explains why CommonCore is Education to Raise Technology Consumers instead of Technology Creators

Common-Core Standards Drew on Ideas From Abroad

Although a few states, such as California, want all 8th graders to take Algebra 1, the writers decided to "strike a balance," crafting guidelines that "get into serious algebra in 8th grade," without requiring classic Algebra 1 elements such as quadratic equations, he says.

That choice, among others, stoked an argument that the common standards don't meet international or university-preparation levels.

"It's absolutely a mistake not to require all of Algebra 1 [content] in 8th grade. They've got very little of Algebra 2 in there," says R. James Milgram, a professor emeritus of math at Stanford University. He served on the common standards' validation committee, but refused to approve them, in part because in his judgment they did not meet their own stated criteria of being "comparable to the expectations of other leading nations."

BTW: If/when you meet a math teacher that supports CommonCore standards, please ask them if they have ever taught Algebra II and if they have actually read the Common Core Math Standards. I have yet to meet any supporter that can answer "yes" to both questions.

Sandra Stotsky helped shape the highly regarded standards in Massachusetts, and, like Milgram, a fellow member of the validation committee, refused to endorse the standards' international comparability. She notes that leaders of the common-standards initiative now describe them as being "informed by" other countries, not "benchmarked" to those nations' standards.

" 'Benchmarking' means you use a set of agreed-upon criteria for judging something," says Stotsky, a professor of education at the University of Arkansas, in Fayetteville. "To be 'informed' by other countries' standards means simply that they were read. Some other countries are light years ahead of what the common standards require for college readiness."

Posted via email from concernedabouteducation's posterous

GOP Supports Liberal Education Agenda???

2012-01-12T06:04:00.001-06:00

Read "Teacher promotes awareness of GOP's support of liberal education reform policies"

And consider adding your name to the list of signatories on the statement below by contacting Doug Lasken via email at: dlasken514@aol.com

We the undersigned do not agree on all things, but we are in close agreement on education, and in particular these five propositions:

1. The federal government is barred by the United States Constitution from imposing academic standards and public school curriculum on the states, the very thing it is attempting to do through the Obama administration programs Race to the Top (RttT) and the Common Core Standards (CCS).

2. In addition to imposing standards and curriculum on the states, RttT mandates that states collect extensive and detailed personal information on students, and that this information be submitted to the federal Department of Education, from which it will be available to other agencies. We oppose this on Constitutional grounds. 

3. The national price tag for CCS is estimated at $30 billion (and perhaps as much as $210 billion) most of which cost is to be borne by the states. This money will enrich special interests- the publishing and testing empires- but will do very little to save America's bankrupted public schools. The undersigned believe that spending $30 billion on standards is like painting a car before junking it- good for the painters, a useless expense for the car owner.

4. The news media has decided that since conservatives object to spending money, and since conservative views are represented in the Republican party, then people who object to RttT and CCS must be represented by the Republican party. The undersigned have found, however, that the Republican party, as distinct from individual candidates, does not represent those seeking sound education policy. Time and again, at all levels from local to federal, the undersigned have encountered ignorance and indifference regarding RttT and CCS from the Republican party and the people it has helped to achieve office. Republicans as much as Democrats have been seduced by the $30 billion and slick sales talk into acquiescence to RttT and CCS.

5. Therefore, we the undersigned here state that the Republican party does not represent our views on American education, that the Republican party is in fact aligned with the Democratic party in pushing through wasteful and highly problematical Democratic programs, and that we therefore disavow allegiance to and support of the Republican party in its policies towards education, and we ask that the media acknowledge that this diminution of Republican support has occurred.

Posted via email from concernedabouteducation's posterous

UNAMERICAN: "Individual 'profiles' must be considered in the light of goals pursued by the wider society"

2012-01-01T20:53:00.001-06:00

What educational purpose could tracking our children possibly serve? After reading Henry Hyde's 1997 testimony excerpted from the U.S.Congressional records, I'm beginning to believe that the "conspiracy theorist' really have been paying attention.

`ultimately, the educational plans that are pursued need to be orchestrated across various interest groups of the society so that they can, taken together, help the society to achieve its larger goals. Individual profiles must be considered in the light of goals pursued by the wider society; and sometimes, in fact, individuals with gifts in certain directions must nonetheless be guided along other less favored paths, simply because the needs of the culture are particularly urgent in that realm at that time.'

I've attended School-to-Work seminars and was never impressed... the content delivered was streamlined to the point of crippling students, in my opinion. That's exactly how I feel about Common Core Math Standards. It's orchestrated alright...and designed to keep you in the dark and circumvent your elected officials.

Posted via email from concernedabouteducation's posterous

National Standards=>=>National Student Database

2011-12-28T18:49:00.001-06:00

How the feds are tracking your kid

Under regulations the Obama Department of Education released this month...the DoE has taken a giant step toward creating a de facto national student database that will track students by their personal information from preschool through career.

Although current federal law prohibits this, the department decided to ignore Congress and, in effect, rewrite the law. Student privacy and parental authority will suffer.

But on Dec. 2, the Department of Education rejected almost all the criticisms and released the regulations. As of Jan. 3, 2012, interstate and intergovernmental access to your child’s personal information will be practically unlimited. The federal government will have a de facto nationwide database of supposedly confidential student information.

Unless Congress steps in and reclaims its authority, student privacy and parental control over education will be relics of the past.

Posted via email from concernedabouteducation's posterous

Class Warfare

2011-12-27T11:19:00.001-06:00

If you achieve, you're gonna be punished!

Where did this attitude come from? Does it refer to academic achievement, monetary success, or both?

The philosophy of the classroom today will be the philosophy of government tomorrow.

Abraham Lincoln

As Harry Reid professes "there are no millionaire job creators" I'm wondering what has happened in our society to create an environment where some people may actually believe him?

As conservative candidates continue to focus on the economy, debating everything except educational freedom, state sovereignty and the threat to these under Common Core Standards and RttT, I keep wondering how we have come to this place where we find it desirable to be COMMON...

Our schools have been scientifically designed to prevent over-education from happening. The average American [should be] content with their humble role in life, because they're not tempted to think about any other role.
– William T. Harris, U.S. Commissioner of Education, 1889

Posted via email from concernedabouteducation's posterous

Education Task Force Approves Anti-Common Core Model Legislation

2011-12-13T05:28:00.001-06:00

From Truth in American Education

The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) met last week in Scottsdale, AZ. They are an organization whose mission is “to advance the Jeffersonian principles of free markets, limited government, federalism, and individual liberty, through a nonpartisan public-private partnership of America’s state legislators, members of the private sector, the federal government, and general public.” They have several task forces, one of which is education.

This group is important as model legislation is often developed and discussed and then taken home to the state capitals and placed on legislative agendas. Though the group’s mission is to advance Jeffersonian principles, in particular federalism, pro-common core state standards advocates like Achieve, Jeb Bush, and The Gates Foundation have gained ground with its members.

The education task force heard argument from Closing the Door to Innovation, a statement that has been signed by 350 prominent education policymakers, researchers, teachers and parents. As a result the education taskforce approved model legislation (sponsored by American Principles Project, The Goldwater Institute, and the Washington Policy Center) opposing the common core state standards. The model legislation below will hopefully be introduced in a state legislature near you:

Comprehensive Legislative Package Opposing the Common Core State Standards Initiative:

WHEREAS, high student performance and closing the achievement gap is fundamentally linked to an overall reform of our public education system through a strong system of accountability and transparency built on state standards; and

WHEREAS, the responsibility for the education of each child of this nation primarily lies with parents, supported by locally elected school boards and state governments; and

WHEREAS, in 2009 and 2010, the State was offered the chance to compete for education funding through the “Race to the Top” program created by the U.S. Department of Education (“ED”); and

WHEREAS, the only way to achieve a score in the competition sufficient to qualify for funding was to agree to “participation in a consortium of States that… (i)s working toward jointly developing and adopting a common set of K-12 standards…”, and

WHEREAS, the only such “common set of K-12 standards” existent at that time, or since, is known as the Common Core State Standards Initiative (“CCSSI”) and was developed without a grant of authority from any state; and

WHEREAS, local election officials, school leaders, teachers, and parents were not included in the discussion, evaluation and preparation of the CCSSI standards that would affect students in the state; and

WHEREAS, citizens had no opportunity to review and comment on the final version of CCSSI standards, and states were not offered an option to modify those standards before their adoption; and

WHEREAS, no empirical evidence indicates that centralized education standards result in higher student achievement; and

WHEREAS, adoption of the CCSSI standards would force several states to lower the rigor and quality of their standards; and

WHEREAS, the National Assessment of Educational Progress national test already exists and allows comparisons of academic achievement to be made across the states, without the necessity of imposing national standards, curricula, or assessments; and

WHEREAS, imposing a set of national standards is likely to lead to the imposition of a national curriculum and national assessment upon the various states, in violation of the General Education Provisions Act, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act; and the Department of Education Organization Act and

WHEREAS, claims from the Common Core Initiative that the CCSSI standards will not dictate what teachers teach in the classroom are refuted by language in the standards as written; and

WHEREAS, common standards will lesson the ability for local stakeholders to innovate and continue to make improvement over time; and

WHEREAS, when no less than 22 states face budget shortfalls and Race to the Top funding for states is limited, $350 million for consortia to develop new assessments aligned with the CCSSI standards will not cover the entire cost of overhauling state accountability systems, which includes implementation of standards and testing and associated professional development and curriculum restructuring; and

WHEREAS, special interest groups can manipulate the vulnerability of the centralized decision making that governs common standards and lower the standards’ rigor and quality of over time to suite their priorities;

Option A (Resolution):

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the (legislative body) of the state of (name of state) rejects any policies and procedures that would be incumbent on the state based on Common Core State Standards Initiative.

Option B (Statute):

The State Board of Education may not adopt, and the State Department of Education may not implement, the Common Core State Standards developed by the Common Core State Standards Initiative. Any actions taken to adopt or implement the Common Core State Standards as the effective date of this section are void ab initio. Neither this nor any other statewide education standards may be adopted or implemented without the approval of the Legislature.

Originally posted at Caffeinated Thoughts

Posted via email from concernedabouteducation's posterous

Important Rebuttal on Common Core Math Promotion

2011-10-06T07:48:00.001-05:00

When I read Rick Hess' interview with Professor Wu on Straight Up, I was very disheartened because many will use this interview in support of the federal overreach into public education. IMO the standards are extremely WEAK at the secondary level and DO NOT prepare students for success in college algebra or beyond.

Ze'ev Wurman brilliantly provided rebuttal links (copied below) for several of the professor's statement in the comments section.

Thanks Ze'ev!!

Wu is unreliable when it comes to many of his descriptions of the Common Core. His claim that the Common Core's abandonment of algebra in grade 8 is consistent with NMAP's findings should be compared with actual NMAPs recommendation #6 (http://www2.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/mathpanel/report/final-report.pdf ) and page 3-47 in that chapter 3 he mentioned (http://www2.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/mathpanel/report/conceptual-knowledge.pdf ).

His sweeping statement that asking for reasoning when solving equations is somehow "new" to the Common Core should be compared with standards 7MR4.1 or A1.5 of the 1997 Calif. standards (http://www.cde.ca.gov/be/st/ss/documents/mathstandards.pdf ).

His praise of the experimental geometry the Common Core imposes – without any prior successful experience -- on America stands in stark contrast with that of Stanford's Prof. Milgram (appendix B at http://www.pioneerinstitute.org/pdf/common_core_standards.pdf ) or of a colleague of Kolmogorov, the mathematician who dreamt up this approach more than 30 years ago (p. 34-35 at http://elib.mi.sanu.ac.rs/files/journals/tm/10/tm612.pdf ).

Wu's praise for CCSMS "neutrality" with high school courses is a nifty attempt to turn CC failure to deliver into a positive "feature." He seems uninformed about Finland (see http://solmu.math.helsinki.fi/2005/erik/PisaEng.html and http://journal.tc-library.org/ojs/index.php/matheducation/article/viewFile/575/355 ), and when he discusses the absence of teaching quadratic equation in China or Japan in 8th grade as an excuse for not teaching algebra in grade 8, he conveniently forgets to tell us that these countries do teach most of algebra 1 in that grade *except* quadratics, and that they additionally teach large sections of proof-based geometry in grade 8.

When I asked Wu last year to reconcile his current anti grade-8 algebra stance with his recent push *for* it when he served on the NMAP, his answer was simple: American elementary and middle school teachers are incompetent to teach algebra or prepare for it, and he came to conclusion that pushing it to high school is the best America can do. Perhaps true, but giving up on America's students is a far cry from waxing lyrical about the "pedagogical sensibility" or "mathematical soundness" of the Common Core.

Posted via email from concernedabouteducation's posterous

Reading Tea Leaves

2011-10-02T08:06:00.001-05:00

In June of 2010, Donna Garner saw exactly what was happening!!

Amazing insight!!

The Federal Takeover of the Public Schools

Posted via email from concernedabouteducation's posterous

Waiver Overreach Without Congressional Approval

2011-10-02T06:47:00.001-05:00

Obama’s “Backdoor Education Agenda”

Obama Waives Congress Away

With Waivers, National Standards Anything but Voluntary

States Need Comprehensive Education Reform, Not Waivers with Obama’s Strings Attached

President Obama Mistakes Bi-Partisan Distaste for NCLB for a Mandate to Rewrite

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) Urges Sec. Duncan to Obey the Constitution

Posted via email from concernedabouteducation's posterous

Where To Start?

2011-09-07T19:39:00.001-05:00

We've all heard some variation of this argument over the last two years...

[A response to Jay P. Greene's blog post Rick Hess Nails National Standards on Their Stealth Strategy]

"Without ‘national standards’ the USA will continue to fail as if they were 50 different nations. Some in the north east will do well but the ones that must improve refuse to admit they have a problem.

The illiterate states must be told you have ten years to get your population to the Massachusetts level of reading and math. Your standards must be at that level grade by grade.

Is this one powerful nation or 50 little backwater countries?"

If he's trying to say that we could have challenged our sovereign states to improve achievement up to the level of Massachusetts within the next ten years, then I would say "EXACTLY - I DEFINITELY AGREE!"

On the other hand, if he's trying to imply that Common Core Standards are as good as Massachusetts standards (were prior to CC) then he's wrong. Both the Math and Language Arts Common Core standards are WEAK!! (you can find a plethora of info on that from MA's own Pioneer Institute)

The 50 sovereign United States are not in any way, shape or form "backwater countries"

IN FACT THEIR SOVEREIGNTY IS THE REASON

THAT AMERICA IS A POWERFUL NATION!!

This might be a good time to read a little more about that...

http://www.whatwouldthefoundersthink.com/national-common-core-standards

Closing the Door on Innovation: Why One National Curriculum is Bad for America

Education to Raise Technology Consumers Instead of Technology Creators

Rick Hess

http://educationnext.org/is-anybody-up-for-defending-the-common-core-math-standards/

http://educationnext.org/keeping-an-eye-on-state-standards/

Bill Evers

159911-education-hornets-nest-us-department-of-education-is-creating-a-national-k-12-curriculum

http://www.freedompolitics.com/articles/legal-2744-nclb-waivers.html

Posted via email from concernedabouteducation's posterous

WEAK MATH >>> WEAKER SCIENCE

2011-08-09T18:06:00.001-05:00

By now you must have figured out that I am NOT A FAN

of Common Core Math Standards!

THEY ARE TOO WEAK AT THE SECONDARY LEVEL!!!

As a result, it's no surprise to find reputable criticism of

the newly released science standards.

Please read Ze'ev Wurman's honest account

as well as

Greg Forster's informative post at Jay P. Green's Blog

AND ASK YOURSELF...

WHY DOES THERE SEEM TO BE AN EFFORT UNDERWAY

(via these weak national standards)

TO CREATE CONSUMERS RATHER THAN PRODUCERS?????

Posted via email from concernedabouteducation's posterous

It's the weekend!

2011-07-30T08:34:00.001-05:00

Time for some Saturday morning reading!

A great post from the Missouri Education Watchdog links to a quiz from the Center for American Progress. Find out (according to them) where your views fall within the spectrum of "progressive" or "conservative".

My score was a 98/400 which they consider as "extremely conservative" - a badge of courage IMHO!

I just found another site, American Principle in Action, which I will reference here for the timely and important article written by Jim Stergios and Lindsey Burke last week regarding the federal overreach in education.

It's a definitely MUST READ!

Posted via email from concernedabouteducation's posterous

Our Government MUST STOP FINANCING Arithmetic and Algebra Avoidance

2011-07-24T07:29:00.001-05:00

President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology

July 15, 2011, Public Comment by Jerome Dancis

U.S.Government Should Stop Financing Arithmetic and Algebra Avoidance
Jerome Dancis, Associate Professor Emeritus, Math Dept., Univ. of MD
Math Education Website: www.math.umd.edu\~jnd

Jerome_Dancis.doc Download this file

Posted via email from concernedabouteducation's posterous

Call To Action!!

2011-07-20T08:08:00.001-05:00

Common Education Data Standards Public Comment Period Begins Today

MAKE SURE YOUR VOICE IS HEARD

Here is YOUR chance as a taxpayer, student and/or parent to comment on the implementation of common core standards. YOU are the one paying for educational services, YOU are THE MOST important stakeholder. This invitation should be shared in all school districts to ALL taxpayers. Let your opinion be recorded. After all, it's your money and your child. YOU should have some decision making power in how your tax dollars are being spent.

Comments and Suggestions must be submitted by Aug 15, 2011

Remember, the common core standard initiative will allow intrusive personal data to be gathered on families and students when and if the FERPA regulations are amended. It truly is a cradle to grave program facilitated by the Federal Government. Make your opinion known the role of government is NOT to track citizens. We are against common core standards and would hope you would make your comments against the takeover of state education rights and unfunded mandates. You can read about Common Core standards at this non partisan site devoted to standards issues, Race to the Top mandates and longitudinal data system information:

www.truthinamericaneducation.org.

Thanks to Missouri Education Watchdog!!

Posted via email from concernedabouteducation's posterous

CUT FUNDING 4 CCS/RttT NOW

2011-07-16T16:58:00.001-05:00

What better time could there be for Congress to cut the funding for Common Core Standards/Race to the Top than right now while they are looking for places to cut the budget? With no funding, CCS/RTTT would be “dead in the water” and good riddance!

-----------------

[In budget talks] Obama rules out his federal takeover and indoctrination of the public schools through Common Core Standards and Race to the Top (CCS/RTTT) which have already cost us taxpayers $100 Billion (ARRA Stimulus), $350 Million (development of national assessments), and $4.35 Billion (Race to the Top 2010).

In his 2011 budget, Obama expects Congress to approve $1.35 Billion for CCS/RTTT. If Congress wants to protect our public school children, they should cut all funding for CCS/RTTT right now before this monstrosity is implemented into all the public schools in the 46 states that have fallen for Obama’s “carrot and stick” approach.

Posted via email from concernedabouteducation's posterous

Misleading the Public with "Education"

2011-07-09T08:23:00.001-05:00

Neal McCluskey has great insight on America's Educational System!

No Child Left Behind likely had much of the public thinking we already had national standards, and it’s little wonder that the Common Core was able to worm its way into so many states.

Read "Standards Garbage in, Standards Garbage Out" here!

Posted via email from concernedabouteducation's posterous

ENJOY YOUR INDEPENDENCE!

2011-07-04T11:15:00.001-05:00

Last year, on the 4th of July, I was listening

to a radio show and heard this.

I know it happened for a reason.

We simply can't let others define for us

what we believe and know to be true.

May God Bless America!

Posted via email from concernedabouteducation's posterous

House Education and Workforce Committee is Asking the Right Questions!!!

2011-06-24T08:13:00.001-05:00

Count Rep. John Kline, R-Minn., the chairman of the House education committee, among the folks who want to know exactly what Secretary of Education Arne Duncan means when he says he's going to consider giving states waivers from parts of the No Child Left Behind law if Congress doesn't act soon on a rewrite.

Kline and Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., who heads the subcommittee overseeing K-12 policy, sent a letter today to Duncan asking him to please explain a) where he gets the authority to do these waivers, and b) what exactly these waivers will entail. (IT'S A MUST READ!!)

Kline is especially uneasy with Duncan's assertion that the flexibility would be given in exchange for states' willingness to embrace a package of reforms dreamed up by the department.

The two congressmen want to see a detailed explanation of the proposal from Duncan by July 1. They also want to know when the plan will be finalized, how the department plans to seek review and public comments, and a timeline explaining just when the waivers would become effective.

Kline said he has been working on the legislation with Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., the top Democrat on the committee, and he said he has "fairly high hopes" that it could be bipartisan. He plans to introduce the legislation in July.

Kline said the committee is currently asking itself "accountability for what and to whom?" (a line he said that Miller has also used.) He's not sure the secretary of education is the right person for schools to be accountable to; school boards, parents, communities and others should be in the mix.

Posted via email from concernedabouteducation's posterous

Threat to by-pass Congress to avoid "train wreck"

2011-06-14T11:37:00.001-05:00

DUNCAN'S THREAT (FINALLY) RECEIVES BIPARTISAN CRITICISM

(should have been the title of this Bloomberg article)

“Given the bipartisan commitment in Congress to fixing No Child Left Behind, it seems premature at this point to take steps outside the legislative process that would address NCLB’s problems in a temporary and piecemeal way,” Harkin said in his statement.

The administration’s first priority is working with Congress to change and reauthorize the law, Duncan said. If lawmakers don’t act, the administration would use its power to grant waivers to states that agree to make changes, Duncan said.

Rather than a “one-off” approach, Duncan said he would favor giving states a regulatory-relief package in exchange for what he described as “a set of reforms.” The administration may ease provisions for states that show they will measure how much students learn in a given year, rather than meeting absolute proficiency standards, Duncan said.

Duncan, when asked by reporters about the types of“reforms” he was referring to, cited the administration’s $5 billion Race to the Top grants that have rewarded states that incorporate student achievement into teacher evaluations and adopted common academic standards developed by U.S. governors and schools chiefs.

Common Core State Standards and Race to the Top: An Introduction to Marxism 101 http://t.co/y2E2Drh

Check$ and Balance$ in Education? http://t.co/TqORxhX

Please READ & SHARE Common Core $tate $tandards: http://www.box.net/shared/kjq4xfeu3m

Posted via email from concernedabouteducation's posterous

Rare Earth Elements: The Secret Ingredients of Everything

2011-06-13T08:40:00.001-05:00

National Geographic, June 2011

Rare Earth Elements: The Secret Ingredients of Everything

"They're all around you," says Karl Gschneidner, a senior metallurgist with the Department of Energy's Ames Laboratory in Ames, Iowa, who has studied rare earth elements for more than 50 years. "The phosphors in your TV—the red color comes from an element called europium. The catalytic converter on your exhaust system contains cerium and lanthanum. They're hidden unless you know about them, so most people never worried about them as long as they could keep buying them."

Now a lot of people are worried.

[but there's good news!]

Molycorp intends to produce 3,000 to 5,000 tons of rare earths from stockpiled ore at its Mountain Pass mine this year and has big expansion plans. "The current U.S. demand is somewhere between 15,000 and 18,000 tons per year," says Smith. "In principle, Mountain Pass could eventually make the United States independent in rare earths."

previous post on Rare Earth Elements

Posted via email from concernedabouteducation's posterous

Ignorance or Apathy?

2011-06-12T09:02:00.001-05:00

I don't know...but I do care!

“No people will tamely surrender their liberties, nor can any be easily subdued, when knowledge is diffused and virtue is preserved. On the contrary, when people are universally ignorant and debauched in their manners, they will sink under their own weight without the aid of foreign invaders.” ~ Samuel Adams

Posted via email from concernedabouteducation's posterous

FIND TRUTH in American Education!

2011-06-09T08:45:00.001-05:00

Welcome Truth in American Education!

If you have questions about Common Core Standards, Race to the Top, and the federal overrun of education, then this is the place to go!

Truth in American Education (TAE) shines a beacon of light directly on the government’s behind-the-scenes efforts to drastically alter American education. As taxpayers, parents and concerned citizens, we believe that proper respect for the American people requires that major educational changes be subject to an open and public discussion prior to approval and implementation, not the other way around.

Truth in American Education provides information to parents, taxpayers, school board members, educators and legislators who are concerned about these issues. At the heart of it, the disposition of these issues will determine whether the federal government and elite, special interest groups have the right to form the hearts and minds of children and whether we will reject, or affirm, the concepts laid down by our founding principles.

BEST WISHES in YOUR SEARCH for TRUTH!

Posted via email from concernedabouteducation's posterous

Good Question... Better Answer!

2011-06-05T09:03:00.001-05:00

Should We Be Worried? (YES)

Core Standards Are Very Different
The new standards are supposed to be internationally benchmarked. Yet Common Core’s eighth-grade math standards don’t match Finland (0.21), Japan (0.17) or Singapore (0.13), primarily because these countries stress performing procedures. On language arts and reading, alignment ranges from 0.09 with Finland to 0.37 with New Zealand.

Should we be worried? Common Core Standards represent “a change for the better” when it comes to “higher order cognitive demand,” Porter concludes, but the “answer is less clear” when it comes to the topics that are covered.

Personally, I would say the "answer" is perfectly clear!

How Big a Change are the Common Core Standards?

Posted via email from concernedabouteducation's posterous

Reauthorization of ESEA

2011-06-05T08:07:00.001-05:00

Cato@Liberty

Just like President Obama’s “blueprint” for reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act — better known as No Child Left Behind — Fordham’s ESEA “Briefing Book” proposes (see page 11) that states either adopt the Common Core or have some other federally sanctioned body certify a state’s standards as just as good in order to get federal money. So there would be an ”option” for states, but it would be six of one, half-dozen of the other, and the Feds would definitely link taxpayer dough to adoption of Common Core standards and tests.

The problem is that most people don’t know what has actually been proposed — who outside of education-wonk circles has time to follow all of this?

— which is what national-standards advocates are almost

certainly counting on.

That is exactly why they will push to get reauthorization this summer, while families are on vacation, teachers may be out of the policy loop, and state legislators think it can "wait 'til the fall.

Posted via email from concernedabouteducation's posterous

A 'Common' education disaster

2011-06-03T07:51:00.001-05:00

Great Politico Opinion Piece!

Douglas Holtz-Eakin served as a director of the Congressional Budget Office. He is now president of the American Action Forum. Annie Hsiao is the director of education policy at American Action Forum.

The federalization of the Common Core Standards has provoked an outcry from a bipartisan group of leading education reformers. They released a letter reminding the nation that there is no constitutional authority for a national curriculum. In addition, there is no evidence demonstrating that national standards improve educational outcomes, or a track record showing that the Common Core Standards are rigorous and first-rate.

The latter point brings the debate full circle. Yes, standards are a good idea. But critics of the Common Core Standards include five dissenters of the Common Core Validation Committee, some of the most internationally reputable standards experts.

Posted via email from concernedabouteducation's posterous

Restoring Sanity

2011-06-02T06:03:00.001-05:00

"a movement to at long last restore sanity to

the federal government amid a fiscal crisis"

Mike Brownfield, The Foundry

The federal government is borrowing 40 cents of every dollar it spends. The accumulated national debt stands at nearly 70 percent of the country’s annual economic output, set to climb to 100 percent by the end of this decade. And according to some comparisons, the U.S. economy is already in worse shape than the stumbling economies of most European nations. But never fear: The President is holding a meeting with congressional Republicans today to “hear and listen to their ideas, their concerns.”

Posted via email from concernedabouteducation's posterous

Common Core $tate $tandards

2011-05-30T09:28:00.001-05:00

Common Core $tate $tandards

What Parents, Taxpayers, and School Boards Should Know...

and perhaps they aren't being told

Citizens United for Responsible Education of Washington State, Missouri Education Watchdog, Mathematically Sound Foundations, The Underground Parent, and the U.S. Coalition for World Class Math independently object to the adoption and implementation of the CCSS.

Posted via email from concernedabouteducation's posterous

National Education Standards

2011-05-30T09:20:00.001-05:00

For the Children or the Department of Education?

from Missouri Education Watchdog

Posted via email from concernedabouteducation's posterous

THIS IS SUPER SCARY!

2011-05-23T20:01:00.001-05:00

WHERE ARE THE MATHEMATICIANS?

You know - the people who actually know and use math!

ANOTHER REASON to STOP COMMON CORE NOW

A Summary Report from the Conference “Moving Forward Together: Curriculum & Assessment and the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics

Pentagon City, Arlington, VA

April 29-May 1, 2011

Organized by: Sol Garfunkel (Chair), Chris Hirsch, Barbara Reys,

Jim Fey, Eric Robinson, and June Mark

Posted via email from concernedabouteducation's posterous

Just say "NO" to National Standards and Streamline U.S. DoE

2011-05-23T05:41:00.001-05:00

Education Department Violates Law, and States Say “No” to National Standards

The Foundry, Heritage Foundation

Ceding greater power over what children are learning to D.C. bureaucrats is not the path to improving education in the United States. Rather, the federal government should give states more flexibility to implement policies that they deem best fit the needs of their students. States also must work to raise academic standards and heighten the transparency—and thus accountability—of school performance to those to whom it rightfully belongs: parents and communities.

Education and the Workforce Committee Moves

to Streamline Department of Education

Clearly, the problem isn’t how much money we spend on education, but how we’re spending it—and right now, far too many taxpayer dollars are dedicated to ineffective, redundant K–12 programs. Rep. Hunter’s legislation will reduce the federal role in education and help set the stage for increased flexibility on the state and local level.

Posted via email from concernedabouteducation's posterous

Common Core - Closing the Door on Innovation!

2011-05-21T08:22:00.001-05:00

Breakin' the Law! Breakin' the Law! (And we say NO!)

Read and sign the Manifesto! Created by a coalition of educational and other leaders which opposes the stealth campaign to impose a single curriculum and a single test on the nation’s schools. Here's an except:

First, there is no constitutional or statutory basis for national standards, national assessments, or national curricula. The two testing consortia funded by the U.S. Department of Education have already expanded their activities beyond assessment, and are currently developing national curriculum guidelines, models, and frameworks in accordance with their proposals to the Department of Education (see the Appendix). Department of Education officials have so far not explained the constitutional basis for their procedures or forthcoming products. The U.S. Constitution seeks a healthy balance of power between states and the federal government, and wisely leaves the question of academic standards, curriculum, and instruction up to the states.3 In fact, action by the U.S. Department of Education to create national standards and curricula is explicitly proscribed by federal law, reflecting the judgment of Congress and the public on this issue.4

Even if the development of national curriculum models, frameworks or guidelines were judged lawful, we do not believe Congress or the public supports having them developed by a self-selected group behind closed doors and with no public accountability. Whether curriculum developers are selected by the Shanker Institute or the U.S. Department of Education’s testing consortia, they are working on a federally funded project to dramatically transform schools nationwide. They therefore ought to be transparent and accountable to Congress and the public.

Critical Common Core Concerns (To be addressed by YOUR Representatives!)

Texas Considers State Sovereignty (Has YOUR state?)

Posted via email from concernedabouteducation's posterous

High Quality Education is America's Best Defense!

2011-05-14T19:43:00.001-05:00

U.S. Dept. of Ed. is Breaking the Law, Jay P. Greene

The 1979 law by which the U.S. Department of Education is authorized in its current form clearly prohibits these activities. It states (in section 103b): “No provision of a program administered by the Secretary or by any other officer of the Department shall be construed to authorize the Secretary or any such officer to exercise any direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum, program of instruction, administration, or personnel of any educational institution, school, or school system, over any accrediting agency or association, or over the selection or content of library resources, textbooks, or other instructional materials by any educational institution or school system, except to the extent authorized by law.”

Public Discourse: Ethics, Law and The Common Good, Greg Forster

Historically, national control of education has come up as an issue about once every ten to fifteen years. In the past, it has usually produced a lot of fireworks but burned out pretty quickly. This year is very different. The nationalizers have learned from their past mistakes; they understand now that the American people don’t want the federal government to control schools. So they’ve adopted clever tactics to disguise what they’re doing and misdirect public attention, and as a result, they are already dangerously close to getting everything they want.

The Department of Education is forbidden by law from developing a national curriculum. This reflects the clear judgment of the people and their congressional representatives, expressed forcefully on all the previous occasions when this issue has come up, against handing over control of education to a single national body.

A coalition of educational and other leaders released “Closing the Door on Innovation,” which opposes this stealth campaign to impose a single curriculum and a single test on the nation’s schools. The over 100 signatories include numerous leaders in the education world, as well as such nationally known figures as Abigail and Stephan Thernstrom, Shelby Steele, Richard Epstein, and Edwin Meese.

You can read it and add your signature at www.k12innovation.com.

Posted via email from concernedabouteducation's posterous

The Voice of the People - Unraveling Common Core

2011-05-08T09:41:00.001-05:00

Legislation Moves to Unravel Common Core Standards

Minnesota

[p25] The commissioner is prohibited from adopting common core in the subject and school year listed in the revision cycle in paragraphs (a) to (f)

New Hampshire

(b) The “common core state standards” developed jointly by the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers shall not be adopted by rule pursuant to RSA 541-A, or included or implemented in any way in the New Hampshire curriculum frameworks, or used as a measure of an adequate public education, without prior approval of the general court.

South Carolina

The State Board may not adopt and the State Department may not implement the Common Core State Standards developed by the Common Core State Standards Initiative. Any actions taken to adopt or implement the Common Core State Standards as of the effective date of this section are void ab initio."

Texas

A district may not meet this requirement through the use of national curriculum standards. (c-2) The State Board of Education may not adopt national curriculum standards to comply with its duties under Chapter 28. For purposes of this section and any other section of this code, national curriculum standards include any curriculum standards endorsed, approved, sanctioned, or promoted by the United States Department of Education, the National Governors Association, or the Council of Chief State School Officers.

Posted via email from concernedabouteducation's posterous

Hugely Important Matter!

2011-05-08T08:35:00.001-05:00

Stotsky Testifies Before Texas Legislature on Education Standards Bill

May, 2011

University of Arkansas professor Sandra Stotsky testified last month before the Texas Legislature in favor of a proposed law that revisits the centuries-old issue of states' rights. The bill was drafted in response to the Common Core standards.

"This is a hugely important bill and a hugely important matter," said Stotsky, who holds the Twenty-First Century Chair in Teacher Quality in the College of Education and Health Professions. "It has implications for the entire country. The high school curriculum and assessments in mathematics and English language arts based on Common Core standards will lower educational attainment in the United States."

Stotsky served as senior associate commissioner in the Massachusetts Department of Education from 1999 to 2003. During that time, she led the development or revision of all of the Massachusetts K-12 standards. She reviewed all states' English language arts and reading standards for the Fordham Institute in 1997, 2000 and 2005. She co-authored Achieve's American Diploma Project high school exit test standards for English in 2004 and the 2008 Texas English language arts and reading standards. She served on Common Core's Validation Committee from 2009 to 2010.

"Texas has the best English language arts and reading standards in the country, now that the first-rate standards that Massachusetts, California and Indiana once had have been dumped and these states have adopted Common Core's. Texas is also developing the best K-12 math standards in the country," Stotsky said. "The Common Core standards in English language arts and reading do not aim for a level of achievement that signifies readiness for authentic college-level work."

Stotsky was one of five members of Common Core's Validation Committee who voted against accepting the final version of the standards.

Link to Stotsky and Milgram's Testimony in the article.

Posted via email from concernedabouteducation's posterous

USA! USA! USA!

2011-05-02T05:41:00.001-05:00

Posted via email from concernedabouteducation's posterous

Lecture-Style Presentations Lead to Higher Achievement in Math and Science

2011-04-21T18:56:00.001-05:00

Harvard Study Shows that Lecture-Style Presentations Lead to Higher Student Achievement

Widely-used problem-solving pedagogy as implemented in practice is

not as effective for raising achievement levels

Cambridge, MA – A new study finds that 8th grade students in the U.S. score higher on standardized tests in math and science when their teachers allocate greater amounts of class time to lecture-style presentations than to group problem-solving activities. For both math and science, the study finds that a shift of 10 percentage points of time from problem solving to lecture-style presentations (for example, increasing the share of time spent lecturing from 60 to 70 percent) is associated with a rise in student test scores of 4 percent of a standard deviation for the students who had the exact same peers in both their math and science classes – or between one and two months’ worth of learning in a typical school year.

These estimates are based on the actual implementation of teaching practices that the researchers observe in practice. Thus, while problem-solving activities may be very effective if implemented in the correct way, simply inducing the average teacher employed today to shift time in class from lecture style presentations to problem solving, without concern for how this is implemented, contains little potential to increase student achievement. On the contrary, the study’s results indicate that there might even be adverse effects on student learning.

Guido Schwerdt, a postdoctoral fellow in Harvard’s Program on Education Policy and Governance, and Amelie C. Wuppermann, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Mainz, Germany, conducted the study. A research article, “Sage on the Stage,” presenting the study’s findings will appear in the Summer 2011 issue of Education Next.

The researchers used data from the 2003 Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). Their sample includes 6,310 students in 205 U.S. schools with 639 teachers (303 math teachers and 355 science teachers, of which 19 teacher both subjects). In addition to test scores in math and science, the TIMSS data include information on teacher characteristics, qualifications, and classroom practices. Most important for the analysis, teachers were asked what proportion of time in a typical week students spent on each of eight activities, and the authors’ methodology focused on three of these activities — listening to lecture-style presentations, working on problems with the teacher’s guidance, and working on problems without guidance — as a “good proxy for the time in class in which students are taught new material.” They divide the amount of time spent listening to lecture-style presentations by the total amount of time spent on each of these three activities to generate a single measure of how much time the teacher devoted to lecturing relative to how much time was devoted to problem-solving activities.

Schwerdt and Wuppermann observe that in recent years, a consensus has emerged among researchers that teacher quality “matters enormously for student performance,” but that relatively few rigorous studies have looked inside the classroom to see what kinds of teaching styles are the most effective. Their study of teaching styles finds that “teaching style matters for student achievement, but in the opposite direction than anticipated by conventional wisdom: an emphasis on lecture-style presentations (rather than problem-solving activities) is associated with an increase — not a decrease — in student achievement.” They report that prominent organizations such as the National Research Council and the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, for at least the last three decades, have “called for teachers to engage students in constructing their own new knowledge through more hands-on learning and group work.” The emphasis on group problem-solving instructional methods has been incorporated into most U.S. teacher preparation programs, and the authors found that teachers in the study’s sample allocated, on average, twice as much time to problem-solving activities as to lecturing, or “direct instruction.”

The researchers recognize that a key challenge in studying the effects of teaching practices is that “teachers may adjust their methods in response to the ability or behavior of their students,” perhaps relying more on lectures when assigned more capable or attentive students. To address these concerns, they “exploit the fact that the TIMSS study tested each student in both mathematics and science,” which allowed them to compare the math and science test scores of individual students whose teacher in one subject tended to emphasize a different teaching style than their teacher in the other subject. They found that in both math and science, the positive relationship between lecture-style methods and test score gains was maintained. The estimated .04 standard deviation impact of a greater emphasis on lecturing is based on students who had the same peers in both classes, because that minimizes the chances that teaching styles — and their consequences — might differ depending on the composition of the class.

About the Authors
Guido Schwerdt is a postdoctoral fellow at the Program on Education Policy and Governance (PEPG) at Harvard University and a research at the Ifo Institute for Economic Research in Munich, Germany. Amelie C. Wuppermann is a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Mainz, Germany.

About Education Next
Education Next is a scholarly journal published by the Hoover Institution that is committed to looking at hard facts about school reform. Other sponsoring institutions are the Harvard Program on Education Policy and Governance, part of the Taubman Center for State and Local Government at the Harvard Kennedy School, and the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation.

Posted via email from concernedabouteducation's posterous

TX Sovereignty ~ Common Core Standards

2011-04-18T22:12:00.001-05:00

Core Standards only cover Algebra I, much but not all of the expected contents of Geometry, and about half of the expectations in Algebra II.

Texas House of Representatives - Committee on State Sovereignty

Meeting: 04/14/11

video

Written Testimony of R James Milgram, Professor Emeritus, Stanford University, member of the Common Core Standards Validation Committee

I would like to testify in support of the bill Rep. Huberty filed, HB 2923, to prevent the so called Core Standards, and the related curricula and tests from being adopted in Texas.

My Qualifications. I was one of the national reviewers of both the first and second drafts of the new TX math standards. I was also one of the 25 members of the CCSSO/NGA Validation Committee, and the only content expert in mathematics.

The Validation Committee oversaw the development of the new National Core Standards, and as a result, I had considerable influence on the mathematics standards in the document. However, as is often the case, there was input from many other sources – including State Departments of Education – that had to be incorporated into the standards.

A number of these sources were mainly focused on things like making the standards as non-challenging as possible. Others were focused on making sure their favorite topics were present, and handled in the way they liked.

As a result, there are a number of extremely serious failings in Core Standards that make it premature for any state with serious hopes for improving the quality of the mathematical education of their children to adopt them. This remains true in spite of the fact that more than 35 states have already adopted them.

For example, by the end of fifth grade the material being covered in arithmetic and algebra in Core Standards is more than a year behind the early grade expectations in most high achieving countries. By the end of seventh grade Core Standards are roughly two years behind.

Typically, in those countries, much of the material in Algebra I and the first semester of Geometry is covered in grades 6, 7, or 8, and by the end of ninth grade, students will have finished all of our Algebra I, almost all of our Algebra II content, and our Geometry expectations, including proofs, all at a more sophisticated level than we expect. Consequently, in many of the high achieving countries, students are either expected to complete a standard Calculus course, or are required to finish such a course to graduate from High School (and over 90% of the populations typically are high school graduates).

Besides the issue mentioned above, Core Standards in Mathematics have very low expectations. When we compare the expectations in Core Standards with international expectations at the high school level we find, besides the slow pacing, that Core Standards only cover Algebra I, much but not all of the expected contents of Geometry, and about half of the expectations in Algebra II. Also, there is no discussion at all of topics more advanced than these.

Problems with the actual mathematics in Core Math Standards As a result of all the political pressure to make Core Standards acceptable to the special interest groups involved, there are a number of extremely problematic mathematical decisions that were made in writing them. Chief among them are:

1. The Core Mathematics Standards are written to reflect very low expectations. More exactly, the explicitly stated objective is to prepare students not to have to take remedial mathematics courses at a typical community college. They do not even cover all the topics that are required for admission to any of the state universities around the country, except possibly those in Arizona, since the minimal expectations at these schools are three years of mathematics including at least two years of algebra and one of geometry. Currently, about 40% of entering college freshmen have to take remedial mathematics. For such students there is less than a 2% chance they will ever successfully take a college calculus course.

Calculus is required to major in essentially all of the most critical areas: engineering, economics, medicine, computer science, the sciences, to name just a few.

2. An extremely unusual approach to geometry from grade 7 on, focusing on rigid transformations. It was argued by members of the writing committee that this approach is rigorous (true), and is, in fact, the most complete and accurate development of the foundations of geometry that is possible at the high school level (also probably true). But it focuses on sophisticated structures teachers have not studied or even seen before. As a result, maybe one in several hundred teachers will be capable of teaching the new material as intended.

However, there is an easier thing that teachers can do – focus on student play with rigid transformations, and the typical curriculum that results would be a very superficial discussion of geometry, and one where there are no proofs at all.

Realistically, the most likely outcome of the Core Mathematics geometry standards is the complete suppression of the key topics in Euclidean geometry including proofs and deductive reasoning.

The new Texas Mathematics Standards

As I am sure you are aware, Texas has spent the past year constructing new draft mathematics standards, and I was one of the national reviewers of both the first and second drafts. The original draft did a better job of pacing than Core Standards, being about one year ahead of them by the end of eighth grade, so not nearly as far behind international expectations. Additionally, they contained a reasonable set of standards for a pre-calculus course, and overall a much more reasonable set of high school standards.

There were a large number of problems as well – normal for a first draft. However, the second draft had fixed almost all of these issues, and the majority of my comments on the second draft were to suggest fixes for imprecise language and some clarifications of what the differences are between the previous approaches to the lower grade material in this country and the approaches in the high achieving countries.

It is also worth noting that the new Texas lower grade standards are closer to international approaches to the subject than those of any other state.

I think it is safe to say that the new Texas Math Standards that are finally approved by the Texas Board of Education will be among the best, if not the best, in the country. (I cannot say this with complete certainty until I have seen the final draft. But since I am, again, one of the national reviewers, this should be very soon.)

So it seems to me that you have a clear choice between

Core Standards – in large measure a political document that, in spite of a number of real strengths, is written at a very low level and does not adequately reflect our current understanding of why the math programs in the high achieving countries give dramatically better results;

The new Texas Standards that show every indication of being among the best, if not the best, state standards in the country. They are written to prepare students to both enter the workforce after graduation, and to take calculus in college if not earlier. They also reflect very well, the approaches to mathematics education that underlie the results in the high achieving countries.

For me, at least, this would not be a difficult choice. So for these many reasons I strongly support HR 2923, and hope the distinguished members of this committee will support it as well.

Respectfully, R. James Milgram

Posted via email from concernedabouteducation's posterous

The Price of "Innovation"

2011-04-17T19:51:00.001-05:00

Some interesting reading...

Nationalized Education Nonsense

by Ze'ev Wurman over at Jay P. Greene's Blog

and then, a little something for any "pie in the skiers"

who might happen to visit here:

The Innovation Mismatch: "Smart Capital" and Education Innovation

over at the Harvard Business Review.

Hey, Jay P. Greene - They used "SMART" Hmmmm....

Posted via email from concernedabouteducation's posterous

Grades vs. Learning

2011-04-15T05:29:00.001-05:00

Beware of "good grades" and investigate the math content taught in our schools!

Teaching Math to the Talented

In short, the percentages of high-achieving students in the United States—and in most of its individual states—are shockingly below those of many of the world’s leading industrialized nations. Results for many states are at a level equal to those of third-world countries.

U. S. Math Performance in World Perspective

Overall results. The percentage of students in the U.S. Class of 2009 who were highly accomplished is well below that of most countries with which the United States generally compares itself. While just 6 percent of U.S. students earned at least 617.1 points on the PISA 2006 exam, 28 percent of Taiwanese students did.

Conclusions

Unfortunately, the United States trails other industrialized countries in bringing a large proportion of its students up to the highest levels of accomplishment. This is not a story of some states doing well but being dragged down by states that perform poorly. Nor is it a story of immigrant or disadvantaged or minority students hiding the strong performance of better-prepared students. Comparatively small percentages of white students are high achievers. Only a small proportion of the children of our college-educated population is equipped to compete with students in a majority of OECD countries.

Major policy initiatives within the United States have in recent years focused on the educational needs of low-performing students. Such efforts deserve commendation, but they can leave the impression that there is no similar need to enhance the education of those students the STEM coalition has called “the best and brightest.”

Posted via email from concernedabouteducation's posterous

Important Information!

2011-04-08T09:17:00.001-05:00

I don't believe that Algebra II should be required for high school graduation, but it is extremely important that parents and students know the implications for future success.

Let's be open and honest and inform the public!

Requiring Algebra II in High School Gains Momentum Nationwide

Washington Post

One [study] conducted by U.S. Department of Education researcher Clifford Adelman found that students who took Algebra II and at least one more math course attained “momentum” toward receiving a bachelor’s degree.

Side Note: This "one study" was an extremely detailed analysis of about 13,000 students from highschool through degree completion or work placement. You can find it here:

Answers in the Tool Box: Academic Intensity, Attendance Patterns, and Bachelor's Degree Attainment

by Clifford Adelman
Senior Research Analyst, U.S. Department of Education

Under Selected Findings: Of ALL pre-college curricula, the highest level of mathematics one studies in secondary school has the strongest continuing influence on bachelor's degree completion. Finishing a course beyond the level of Algebra 2 (for example, trigonometry or pre-calculus) more than doubles the odds that a student who enters postsecondary education will complete a bachelor's degree. [pp. 16-18]

Here's a 2002 report from Carnevale and Desrochers, but it may not be the one referred to in the Washington Post article above.

Standards for What? The Economic Roots of K-12 Reform

Anthony P. Carnevale and Donna M. Desrochers

[p. 55] Workers in the Best-Paying Jobs Have Typically Completed Algebra II

[p. 56] In the current education curriculum, these higher-level courses are the means by which people learn higher-level reasoning skills. Throwing out the current curriculum without a superior alternative in place would be like throwing out the baby with the bath water.

Posted via email from concernedabouteducation's posterous

Everyday Math and TERC Investigations = Bad Math Ed in US

2011-04-03T16:10:00.001-05:00

Q & A with Jim Milgram

Q: Do you prefer Traditional Math over Reform Math?

Q & A with Ze'ev Wurman

Q: If you had to rate EDM vs. Singapore Math in achieving real math proficiency, what would be your ranking on 1-10 scale (10 being best) for each program?

A: Proficiency is hard to define. I would use the preparation for an authentic Algebra 1 course (Nat'l Advisory Math Panel definition) instead.

TERC = 2,

EDM = 4,

Saxon = 7 or 8,

Singapore (Primary Math) = 10.

Clearly, supplementation may change the results for the less effective programs.

Must Read Website on TERC

A: Anyone interested in majoring in a technical area should have a much more traditional program than the reform programs. Though there is nothing intrinsically wrong with some of the reform ideas, the implementations are worse than horrible at this time.

Posted via email from concernedabouteducation's posterous

What a novel idea!!

2011-03-28T21:49:00.001-05:00

Let Us Teach!

What we, as teachers, need to do is take back our profession. Most teachers will take to the streets and protest over salaries, pensions and working conditions, but how many teachers would do the same if someone who has never taught their grade level or subject, imposed a new curriculum or demanded that certain pedagogy be followed?

As you know by now, I personally would not "take to the streets" over salary, but this article really expresses the frustration I feel when so much of my time is wasted jumping through hoops!

Just let us teach!

(And stop interrupting our classes!)

Posted via email from concernedabouteducation's posterous

Critical Common Core Concerns (C^4)

2011-03-26T10:15:00.001-05:00

There are several things that must be considered and

addressed very soon about Common Core (CC) Standards.

Please share these concerns with YOUR State Representatives!

(1) CC violates our Constitution and blatantly usurps state's rights in the control of course of education.

(2) CC framework development violates NCLB law that prevents federal officials from activities that “mandate, direct, or control” a state’s, district’s or school’s “specific instructional content, academic achievement standards and assessments, curriculum or program of instruction.”

(3) CC state standards adoption and framework development in the majority of examples is in violation of open meetings laws and common practices in public, civic procedures that must allow time for public input, feedback, and revision.

(4) CC will inevitably be expensive for states to implement, especially those that did not receive RttT federal (coercive) funding. Each state's legislative representatives must demand a cost-benefit analysis from CC, as well as one from an independent firm, for their state. (The comparison is sure to be enlightening.)

(5) CC standards adoption and framework development disenfranchises state education policy boards, authorized under the our state laws, to make decisions in educational matters. Which begs the question: "Why would members of the National Governor's Association (NGA) wish to relinquish that control?"

It's a good thing that Texas has NOT signed-on! TX and CA standards often drive textbook content because of their sizable markets. With the Texas hold-out, teachers in other state can have some hope that high quality math content will be available post CC. (That is, IF they have the option to teach it!).

Informational Reading:

Can the Federal Government Fund Curriculum Materials?
Christopher T. Cross, who is a partner in the Washington-based education consulting firm Cross & Joftus, noted that the 1979 law that created the most recent iteration of the U.S. Department of Education prohibits the federal funding of curriculum. Cross helped write that law when he was the Republican staff director of the House committee on education and labor in 1978.

'Curriculum' Definition Raises Red Flags
"It’s impossible to make a plausible argument that decisions about even “big ideas” in curriculum won’t prescribe what happens in classrooms"
Neal P. McCluskey, a policy analyst at the Cato Institute.

Posted via email from concernedabouteducation's posterous

Teacher Evaluations

2011-03-20T08:49:00.001-05:00

I was reading this March 13 article by Doug Lasken and Bill Evers in the SFGate.

They ask, "Who is the effective teacher? Is it the teacher whose students pay attention during the principal's visit, or make nice posters for the hallway, or line up quietly on the playground? Or is it the teacher whose students are learning what they need to know?"

These are great questions! Here are a few observations I'd like to point out:

1) Most school administrators don't have a math/science background. (Typically teachers in those areas don't have the time or inclination to pursue administrative posts.)

2) Available assessments are for core subject areas only, however districts across the country employ a multitude of non-core teachers.

3) School administrators perform "fly-by" evaluations of teachers in every area because they cannot possibly know every subject. They are "looking for" the latest fad in pedagogy, not the quality of the content taught. Subject matter evaluations should be performed by the department chair in that subject, otherwise there is only testing data of core subjects for administrators to consider.

4) Teachers who teach stand alone courses that are not reliant on prior learning are at a distinct advantage in every proposed teacher evaluation plan which is tied to learning outcomes that I've read. Yet, the US wants to encourage more students to go into math/science teaching. Hmm...

Posted via email from concernedabouteducation's posterous

Inspiration!

2011-03-19T09:13:00.001-05:00

Good Morning!

I was trying to link to an older post for Laurie Rogers over at

Betrayed but the link didn't work, so here's another one!

Great song to crank up for inspiration!

(Turn your speakers up!)

Triumph - Allied Forces - Fight the Good Fight!

(That says IT ALL!!)

Posted via email from concernedabouteducation's posterous

School Boards are Accountable to Patrons!

2011-03-15T08:53:00.001-05:00

Please share with local board members

How a small amount of federal money promotes ill-designed mathematics and science programs in K-12 and undermines local control of education

Posted via email from concernedabouteducation's posterous

Congress - Stop the Madness!!

2011-03-15T08:06:00.001-05:00

National Science Foundation Award #0962863, totalling $3,352,128.

The project's work will directly [impact] 180 in-service and 24 new teachers and, each year, more than 2200 students.

This project is in collaboration with TERC!!

The 1979 law that created the most recent iteration of the U.S. Department of Education prohibits the federal funding of curriculum.

[Yet Congress funds NSF which keeps funding these terrible math programs!]

Reviews of TERC: Investigations in Number, Data, and Space

STOP Taking Excessive Risks with our Children!

Posted via email from concernedabouteducation's posterous

Poor Legislation Is Not The Answer

2011-03-05T07:52:00.001-06:00

I believe that school districts should have the power to employ the very best available teachers with their limited resources. They should have the ability to dismiss unfit teachers quickly so that students are able to learn. Tax-payers have a right to expect the absolute best for their hard-earned dollars.

MO's HB 628 is poorly written and I don't believe it will lead to overall improvement, assuming that is the goal.

A teacher's rank-order, as defined in the bill, is too heavily based on student performance. So when they write "No more than forty percent of a building's teachers shall receive a standards-based score in the top thirty-three percent," they are not using a "standard" for measurement which every teacher could measure up to if they worked hard enough. Would parents allow this sort of ranking for their students' grades?

And if I'm reading the bill correctly, nothing about our state funding formula would change, however, the state would be directing local districts how to allocate their limited resources within each building for teacher salaries. Should local school boards relinquish this level of control over such a large portion of their operating budgets?

I do like this part of the bill below - it's too bad it wasn't part of a more reasonable proposal. I believe this issue should have been addressed years ago.

No teacher shall take part in the management of a campaign for the election or defeat of members of a board of education by which he or she is employed. Any teacher who violates the provisions of this section shall be subject to termination of his or her employment by the district with the right of a hearing as heretofore provided.

Dunce cap: Teacher pay, tenure bill is a provocation -- not a proposal

A telling aspect of HB 628 is that the Missouri School Boards Association has endorsed it. That shows that Missouri’s troubles with public education are as much a product of weak stewardship as poor teachers.

Low-performing teachers are hired and retained by supervisors who have failed to properly vet, evaluate, supervise and manage their personnel.

By advancing such profoundly flawed legislation, the School Boards Association, with help from state lawmakers, demonstrates that its members are unwilling to do the hard work of recruiting and developing good teachers.

Posted via email from concernedabouteducation's posterous

Taxpayers aren't even in the room.

2011-03-04T14:41:00.001-06:00

Public Unions Get Too 'Friendly'

Peggy Noonan, WSJ

When union leaders negotiate with a politician, they're negotiating with someone they can hire and fire. Public unions have numbers and money, and politicians need both. And politicians fear strikes because the public hates them. When governors negotiate with unions, it's not collective bargaining, it's more like collusion. Someone said last week the taxpayers aren't at the table. The taxpayers aren't even in the room.

As for unions looking out for the little guy, that's not how it's looking right now. Right now the little guy is the public school pupil whose daily rounds take him from a neglectful family to an indifferent teacher who can't be removed. The little guy is the beleaguered administrator whose attempts at improvement are thwarted by unions. The little guy is the private-sector worker who doesn't have a good health-care plan, who barely has a pension, who lacks job security, and who is paying everyone else's bills.

Posted via email from concernedabouteducation's posterous

Representative Government Undermined

2011-02-27T08:05:00.001-06:00

The bottom line: Private-sector unions have competitors and bargain over the profits they help create. The government earns no profits. Government unions have a legal monopoly and bargain for a greater share of tax dollars. Collective bargaining in government means that voters’ elected representatives must agree on tax and spending decisions with union representatives.

from Time to Restore Voter Control: End the Government-Union Monopoly February 25, 2011 by James Sherk

Collective bargaining gives unions a monopoly on the labor supplied to government. This takes away the final say on government policy from the voters’ elected representatives. Elected representatives must negotiate with unions over acceptable spending and policy decisions. State and local governments cannot hire nonunion employees to work for different terms.[7] If the government and unions disagree, the union can strike against the public or call in an arbitrator to impose terms.

Collective bargaining forces elected representatives to negotiate a contract with union leaders, excluding all other citizens and potential workers from the bargaining table. Voters’ representatives do not fully control spending and tax decisions. They must reach agreement with union leaders who are unaccountable to the general public. This undermines the principle of voter sovereignty. Union leaders once recognized and opposed this. As recently as 1959, the AFL-CIO Executive Council stated flatly that “In terms of accepted collective bargaining procedures, government workers have no right beyond the authority to petition Congress—a right available to every citizen.”[8]

[7]Federal laws permitted President Reagan to fire the illegally striking air traffic controllers in 1981 and bring in emergency replacements. State and local laws do not allow the government to hire nonunion workers to lower labor costs. States and municipalities must hire workers for the terms agreed to in the contract or imposed by the arbitrator.

[8]Kramer, Labor’s Paradox, p. 41.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Posted via email from concernedabouteducation's posterous

Get the Facts!

2011-02-25T16:51:00.001-06:00

Wall Street Journal, Feb 25

The showdown in Wisconsin over fringe benefits for public employees boils down to one number: 74.2. That's how many cents the public pays Milwaukee public-school teachers and other employees for retirement and health benefits for every dollar they receive in salary. The corresponding rate for employees of private firms is 24.3 cents.

Gov. Scott Walker's proposal would bring public-employee benefits closer in line with those of workers in the private sector. And to prevent benefits from reaching sky-high levels in the future, he wants to restrict collective-bargaining rights.

Overall, for teachers and other employees, the district's contributions for pensions and Social Security total 22.6 cents for each dollar of salary. The corresponding figure for private industry is 13.4 cents.

The district's contributions for health insurance of active employees total 38.8% of wages. For private-sector workers nationwide, the average is 10.7%.

Overall, the school district's contributions to health insurance for employees and retirees total about 50.9 cents on top of every dollar paid in wages. Together with pension and Social Security contributions, plus a few small items, one can see how the total cost of fringe benefits reaches 74.2%.

As the costs of pensions and insurance escalate, the governor's proposal to restrict collective bargaining to salaries—not benefits—seems entirely reasonable.

Posted via email from concernedabouteducation's posterous

Congress must prevent federal control of the content of public education.

2011-02-22T18:40:00.001-06:00

How to Avoid Dumbing High Schools Down

in Re-authorizing ESEA

Sandra Stotsky

There are good reasons why Congress should remove wording in the re-authorization of ESEA that implicitly requires states to adopt or use Common Core’s standards, or leaves states no choice but to adopt or use them.

The blackest mark CCS gets is for the low level of the academic expectations built into their definition of, and standards for, college-readiness. Besides the legal questions, Common Core’s “college- and career-readiness standards” are not rigorous enough to prepare American high school students for authentic college-level coursework. Nor can they make this country competitive in mathematics and science.

CCS are neither internationally benchmarked nor research-based.

If states must use tests based on standards claimed to “prepare all students for college and career” in order to get their Title I money, USDE would end up in control of public education in every state in this country.

Policies built into ESEA wording should strengthen, not weaken, the high school curriculum and prevent federal control of the content of public education.

Posted via email from concernedabouteducation's posterous

Support Wisconsin Governor Walker

2011-02-19T09:45:00.001-06:00

Stand with Scott Walker

In Wisconsin, private sector workers make 74% of their state-level public sector counterparts. This is the 48th worst pay differential in the nation and clearly shows that the public sector employee unions aren’t hurting for better pay or benefits.

Posted via email from concernedabouteducation's posterous

History Lesson for YOUR Legislators!

2011-02-16T05:39:00.001-06:00

Funding for NSF's Education and Human Resources division is under consideration. Please share THIS with your legislators! (Scroll down under the NSF heading)

Posted via email from concernedabouteducation's posterous

Can They? Or Are They?

2011-02-15T19:14:00.001-06:00

Can the Federal Government Fund Curriculum Materials? Catherine Gewertz

Christopher T. Cross, who is a partner in the Washington-based education consulting firm Cross & Joftus, noted that the 1979 law that created the most recent iteration of the U.S. Department of Education prohibits the federal funding of curriculum. Cross helped write that law when he was the Republican staff director of the House committee on education and labor in 1978.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

It's been happening for a long time - to the mathematical detriment of our children!

School math books, nonsense, and the National Science Foundation

Show Us the Money!!

Posted via email from concernedabouteducation's posterous

Keeping an Open Mind while Looking Ahead

2011-02-03T09:40:00.001-06:00

We're talking about a world where the digital revolution that's hit the rest of the world now gets to take off in education too. We aren't talking about an adult-less or teacher-less world, but a world where the technological advances that have swept the globe start to take over education. And a lot of people, including in the private equity world, are starting to think about that.

Joel Klein in an interview with Rick Hess, Education Week Blog, Feb 2, 2011

Why is News Corp buying [Wireless Generation]? Murdoch says it’s because education in the U.S. is a $500 billion sector “waiting desperately to be transformed by big breakthroughs that extend the reach of great teaching” and Wireless Generation is at the “forefront” of individualized, tech-based learning.

Forbes, Nov 23, 2010

Posted via email from concernedabouteducation's posterous

The Innovation Agenda

2011-02-02T11:32:00.002-06:00

For some reason this one didn't cross-post simultaneously.

State of the Union and Education

2011-02-02T11:04:00.001-06:00

Education in Obama's State of the Union

Jay P. Greene's Blog

These national standards, which the President promoted in his State of the Union address, have retreated from the decades-long consensus that we should strive to match top-performing countries by teaching Algebra I in eighth grade to as many students as we successfully can.

Education Message Didn't Add Up to Excellence

National Review Online - The Corner

Washington lacks both the constitutional authority and the capacity to manage local schools. The federal government provides less than 10 percent of the funding that goes to education, but far more of the bureaucracy and red tape.

Posted via email from concernedabouteducation's posterous

Regress to Focus on Inputs Rather than Outcomes

2011-01-29T16:18:00.001-06:00

Flaws in a Less Rigorous Education 'Dashboard'
Education Week Commentary by Ze'ev Wurman & Williamson M. Evers

January 28, 2011

On Monday [Jan. 24], U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan released an online “Education Dashboard” that is supposed to show how American schools and students are performing and to encourage public debate and discussion.

Where the Bush-era indicators defined college readiness by college-admissions-test scores of high schoolers, Secretary Duncan has replaced them with the rather meaningless measure of “public school graduates who took at least one Advanced Placement test”—took, but did not necessarily pass.

While many distracting inputs have been added, an important one has been dropped. That measure of input, which was included in the Bush-era indicators, is broadly meaningful to the public: average national K-12 spending per student. Such a figure is a vital component of any effort to measure productivity. Per-pupil spending has continued to rise even during the recession. Yet this figure is now absent from the Obama administration’s dashboard and thus hidden from the public.

In summary, we are disappointed that Secretary Duncan and the Obama administration have chosen, in effect, to lower achievement expectations and regress to a focus on inputs rather than on outcomes.

Ze'ev Wurman is a manager in a Silicon Valley technology startup company and was a senior adviser to the U.S. Department of Education during President George W. Bush’s administration. Williamson M. Evers is a research fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution and a member of the institution’s Koret Task Force on K-12 Education. He was the assistant U.S. secretary of education for planning, evaluation, and policy development during the same administration.

Posted via email from concernedabouteducation's posterous

Winning the Future?

2011-01-29T08:01:00.001-06:00

Sandra Stotsky on "Education's Long Forgotten Vision" by Avner Molcho.

The first step in facilitating a more equitable allocation of academic credentials was development of national standards in English and mathematics loosely tethered at the secondary level to their traditional content. That step was completed with the help of the Gates Foundation, which paid for the development, review, post-facto validation, and promotion of the reading and mathematics standards Common Core released in June 2010, and which also influenced the selection of most of the personnel involved. Public officials and the media were repeatedly told by the developers of the standards that they were research-based and internationally benchmarked, even though independent subject matter experts and researchers indicated this was not the case.[2] To clinch the first step, the U.S.D.E. ensured state adoption of these skills-oriented standards (about 45 states so far) with the lure of Race to the Top competitive funds.

Efforts are already underway to make sure that all “college ready” students can be successful in their freshman college courses. Public colleges are being asked to “align” entrance requirements and the content of freshman courses to Common Core’s secondary standards, not the other way around. And, to ensure that “college ready” students can graduate from a college degree program in record time, all of their freshman courses must be credit-bearing, not tagged as remedial. (Otherwise, these students could not be called “college ready.”)

Once upon a time, making students “college ready” meant strengthening, not weakening, the high school curriculum.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Rather than working to improve K-12 outcomes, efforts are underway to weaken college requirements. Winning the future? (Yeah, right!!)

Posted via email from concernedabouteducation's posterous

Commoditizing Education

2011-01-21T20:29:00.001-06:00

Duncan: Common Standards Will Produce Tech Innovations

By Sean Cavanagh

"Companies that have stayed clear of the market because of having to develop different products to meet different states' standards will soon have a shot to sell goods across states"

"With common standards coming, and with common assessments coming, we are creating a much more efficient marketplace," Duncan said, "and there are lots of folks out there who could do very well by doing good, going forward."

"It was very tough, with a lot of different standards, trying to customize everything at the local level," he added. "There are huge inefficiencies there. With a common measuring stick and common standards, I think the market becomes much more attractive for those geniuses on the entertainment side, to get into the education sector."

This word just came to mind when I read the article. It makes me very uncomfortable when coupled with education.

Commoditization

Movement toward perfect competition; the process by which a good or service thought to be unique or superior becomes like other, similar goods and services in the eyes of the market. Commoditization is the movement toward undifferentiated competition between two or more companies offering the same good or service. This leads to lower prices.

Posted via email from concernedabouteducation's posterous

Local Control

2011-01-08T09:01:00.001-06:00

Locally elected school board members have a responsibility to consider all pertinent information before casting their votes. This is the issue at hand in Seattle regarding their high school math adoption.

Rather than considering all of the information available to them at the time, a slim majority of School Board members followed the ill-conceived recommendation of the district's administration and recommended a math series that is ineffective.

I've summarized recent events below, but if you would like read the entire back story, go to Seattle Math Group. Martha McLaren has done a great job of keeping us all up to date!

I believe this is a very important case! Elected School Boards should be held responsible for making good decisions based on all available pertinent information.

Please consider contributing, even a small amount, to the Seattle Math Group legal fund!

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

Back in February, the Court found that there was "insufficient evidence for any reasonable Board member to approve the selection of the Discovering Series"

The Washington State School Director's Association filed an Amicus Brief recently which is simply wrong!

Their argument fails apart on p. 4 where they claim that “By determining that there was insufficient evidence for any reasonable board member to approve the selection of the Discovering series math curriculum, the trial court threw its weight behind the competing ‘direct instruction’ curriculum.” There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE to support that statement.

On p. 9 they affirm that “Although RCW 28A.645 provides for judicial review of school board decisions, review of school board legislative or quasi-legislative acts is limited to determining whether the board acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner or contrary to the law.”

Which is EXACTLY what Judge Spector found!!

And on p. 10 they state that “Agency action is arbitrary and capricious only if it is willful and unreasoning in disregard of facts and circumstances”

Which (AGAIN) is EXACTLY what the Judge found because they did not consider all of the information that was provided.

Posted via email from concernedabouteducation's posterous

Happy New Year!!

2011-01-01T10:36:00.001-06:00

Best and Worst in American Education, 2010

from the Hoover Institute

Hoover’s Koret Task Force on K-12 Education pored over the year’s key events, deliberating, arguing, voting, and finally rendering a verdict. The eleven education experts in the task force selected nine notable events; four exclusively in the best-of-year category, four in the worst category, and one—U.S. education secretary Arne Duncan’s high-profile “Race to the Top” competition—clearly in both.

4) of "the best"

Education reform discussions often neglect curriculum. The first of these path-breaking and methodologically sophisticated IES studies shows that curriculum matters at least as much as higher-profile reforms. http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20094052/summ_2.asp

Sadly, the second study shows that it is extremely difficult to improve teacher performance via professional development and raises the possibility that most current efforts of that sort are a waste of time and money. http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20104009/

There was a renaissance of rigorous, federally sponsored education research during the George W. Bush administration; these laudable studies were launched during that renaissance.

Posted via email from concernedabouteducation's posterous

Educational Insanity

2010-12-16T08:10:00.001-06:00

This post is intended to provide background information for anyone seeking to learn why America's math education is failing so many students. Parents may not learn of this failure until their child places into remedial math courses in college, but courageous mathematicians and scientists have earnestly tried to stop this nonsense for years!!

School math books, nonsense, and the National Science Foundation

American Journal of Physics, February 2007

MATH PROBLEMS
Why the U.S. Department of Education's
recommended math programs don't add up

American School Board Journal, April 2000

My previous post had an example of how "reform" math "teaches" long division. The article above explains exactly why the standard algorithm must be mastered by students in elementary grades to prepare them to divide polynomials in algebra.

AN OPEN LETTER TO UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF EDUCATION, RICHARD RILEY

Posted via email from concernedabouteducation's posterous

Wake Up Call !!

2010-12-11T08:45:00.001-06:00

The WSJ published an article entitled "A Sputnik Moment for U.S. Education" and a couple of days later, a friend showed me the way her child is being taught "division" via a popular "reform" math program. I seriously doubt that China wastes valuable class time on this sort of DRIVEL!

Download now or preview on posterous

The_New_Division_-_Copy.pdf (96 KB)

Posted via email from concernedabouteducation's posterous

Improve STEM with more red tape??

2010-12-04T21:11:00.001-06:00

Yep, that's the plan!

You've GOT to be kidding!

My bill, H.R. 6248, addresses these problems by providing the education and skills necessary for students to compete in today's global economy and to understand increasingly complex issues. Additionally, it improves STEM education coordination and coherence among federal and state governments in order to advance STEM education across the nation.

How? First, this legislation creates an Office of STEM at the U.S. Department of Education at the assistant-secretary level, responsible for coordinating STEM education initiatives among all federal agencies.

Second, this bill institutes a voluntary Consortium on STEM education, comprised by no less than five states representing at least five of the nation's nine geographical regions. Its mission: to develop common content standards for K-12 STEM education, engineered at the state and local levels.

Third, the bill creates the National STEM Education Research Repository, which would be a clearinghouse for educators to research the latest innovations in STEM. This will break the silos that keep creative programs from being replicated and will make these resources available through simple internet searches rather than having to sift through convoluted websites.

Common Core = WEAK Math Standards

BEWARE OF "COHERENCE AMOUNG FEDERAL AND STATE GOVERNMENTS"

Posted via email from concernedabouteducation's posterous

Budget Crisis = Historic Opportunity????

2010-12-04T20:46:00.001-06:00

CAN YOU THIS B.S.?

Redefining the federal role in public education

(D-Rep. Mike Honda)

To this day, federal dollars represent less than 10 percent of public education funding. State governments provide the bulk of the funding, so they are mostly immune to federal efforts to reform education policy.

The current crisis in state budgets has created a historic opportunity to change this paradigm. State governments, mired in long-term fiscal trouble, are willing to accept the requirements the federal government has imposed in order to receive desperately needed aid.

Paradigmatic change is already happening. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act has altered the political landscape through competitive grant programs like Race To The Top, that provide state and local governments with funding if the recipient agreed to some form of educational reforms. More than 30 states have changed laws around the issue of teacher evaluation. The impending reauthorization of ESEA has taken the process a step further: 37 states have agreed to the Common Core standards for curricula to ensure they will qualify for future federal funding. The groundwork has been laid for an increased federal role in education. We need to build on these accomplishments to ensure that federal dollars can continue to be leveraged to produce local successes after the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funding runs out.

WHEN HAS AN INCREASED FEDERAL ROLE

IN ANYTHING

RESULTED IN IMPROVEMENT??

Scrapping Education Dept. Could Be Tough Task

Posted via email from concernedabouteducation's posterous

Trade practice threat to US manufacturing - from EPI

2010-11-24T07:26:00.001-06:00

Comments on the USTR investigation of

China’s subsidies to green industries

Robert E. Scott
November 17, 2010

The United Steelworkers recently filed a petition with the U.S. Trade Representative, accusing China of illegally stimulating and protecting its producers of green technology exports, ranging from wind and solar energy products to advanced batteries and energy-efficient vehicles. After the USTR opened an investigation, EPI International Economist Robert Scott submitted the attached comments outlining how Chinese trade practices "pose a direct threat to the recovery of U.S. manufacturing."

Recall: As concerns for energy independence, climate change and other issues drive the sale of electric vehicles the demand for batteries made with rare earth compounds will climb even faster.

Posted via email from concernedabouteducation's posterous

What does the future hold for public education?

2010-11-23T16:39:00.001-06:00

An Interview with Laurie H. Rogers: Betrayed

Q. What does the future hold for public education?

A. That depends on the people. If parents and teachers can resist the negative messages that divide them, and instead work together to take back the classroom, many good things can happen. The country is desperate, the children are desperate, the taxpayer is desperate, and businesses are desperate. People must rise up and insist on the education system they want. It’s a pretty good thing to do for the children and the country.

I look forward to reading her book "Betrayed: How the Education Establishment Has Betrayed America and What You Can Do About It," which will be published in December by Rowman & Littlefield Education.

Posted via email from concernedabouteducation's posterous

It's ALL Education! (REE)

2010-11-21T16:17:00.001-06:00

From an ealier post:

It took slightly less than a decade for the U.S. trade balance in high-technology manufactured goods to shift from a positive $40 billion in 1990 to a negative $50 billion in 2001.

Now consider this:

The US imports 100% of it's rare earth elements, even though we have the world's third largest deposit. These imports come mostly from China, who has banned exporting them in recent weeks, putting our economy in an even more vulnerable position.

Check out: The USGS Report The Principal Rare Earth Elements Deposits of the United States—A Summary of Domestic Deposits and a Global Perspective

"At the present time, the United States obtains its REE raw materials from foreign sources, almost exclusively from China. Import dependence upon a single country raises serious issues of supply security."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rare earth metals and alloys that contain them are used in many devices that people use every day such as: computer memory, DVD's, rechargeable batteries, cell phones, car catalytic converters, magnets, fluorescent lighting and much more.

During the past twenty years there has been an explosion in demand for many items that require rare earth metals. Twenty years ago there were very few cell phones in use but the number has risen to over 5 billion in use today. The usage of computers and DVDs has grown almost as fast as cell phones.

Posted via email from concernedabouteducation's posterous

Untitled

2010-11-20T20:24:00.001-06:00

Reform Math, American Thinker, November 20

Few things could be more useless than a system of math instruction concocted by developmental psychologists, and serious questions must be raised about the real effects (and intent) of Everyday Math. Human beings have been performing simple math since hunter-gatherers realized they had digits and things that needed to be counted. Only a starry-eyed progressive fool would attempt improvement upon methods of simple addition and subtraction, which were used by Franklin, Edison, and Einstein.

And an epiphany found in the comments:

The rot that is destroying our public schools can only be fixed by communities unwilling to suffer the pathologies found there.

Posted via email from concernedabouteducation's posterous

NGA Announces STEM Advisory Committee

2010-11-20T07:34:00.001-06:00

“The increasingly globalized economy requires workers with strong science, technology, engineering and math skills,” said John Thomasian, director of the NGA Center. “This Committee is intended to provide the perspectives of a variety of stakeholders to governors and states as they work to establish and grow STEM education programs that can contribute to economic competitiveness.”

Now seriously, when "variety of stakeholders" is used to describe a committee, you can bet it's stacked with educrats.

(IMO) Just 2 out of the 19 (Stephens and Quinn) are really equipped to contribute and possibly improve our ability to compete in the globalized economy.

Feel free to check the committee's credentials and content specific experience yourself! Happy hunting!!

Posted via email from concernedabouteducation's posterous

BEAUTIFULLY ARTICULATED!!

2010-11-14T09:14:00.001-06:00

Improving math and science education is the single greatest challenge to our continued economic and national security leadership. Without a profound improvement in math and science learning, America will simply not be able to sustain its national security nor compete for high value jobs in the world market.

(And Yes!! Let's get REAL!!)

There has been a steady growth in the amount of money spent on red tape, bureaucracy, and supervision. We now have curriculum specialists who consult with curriculum consultants, who work with curriculum supervisors, who manage curriculum department heads, who occasionally meet with teachers. [and, for the most part, the curriculum they develop is extremely WEAK!]

The more we seem to spend on education, the smaller the share we spend on inspiring and rewarding those actually doing the educating.

Posted via email from concernedabouteducation's posterous

SOOOOO glad to stumble upon this!

2010-11-13T09:04:00.001-06:00

Association of American Educators

AAE is America's fastest growing national, nonprofit, nonunion teachers' association with members in all 50 states.

AAE offers professional member benefits such as liability insurance and legal protection, professional development, newsletters, scholarships, classroom grants, and a voice on educational issues—but at a fraction of the cost of most other associations' dues.

AAE does not spend any of our members' dues on partisan politics, nor do we support or oppose controversial agendas unrelated to education.

(special thanks to Kyle Olson)

Posted via email from concernedabouteducation's posterous

Education and National Security

2010-11-12T04:46:00.001-06:00

The NSA: Security in Numbers

The success of the NSA hinges on the health of American math education. "If the U.S. mathematics community isn't healthy," Schatz says, "the NSA isn't healthy."

Unlike the tech companies it must compete with, the NSA can hire only U.S. citizens. This is a severe constraint. About half of the estimated 20,000 math graduate students at U.S. universities are foreigners. They're off bounds, as are the bountiful math brains in India, China, Eastern Europe, and elsewhere.

China dominates NSA-backed coding contest

Whether the outcome of this competition is another sign that math and science education in the U.S. needs improvement may spur debate. But the fact remains: Of 70 finalists, 20 were from China, 10 from Russia and two from the U.S.

Posted via email from concernedabouteducation's posterous

Love the Dunce Cap! :)

2010-11-08T19:11:00.001-06:00

Race to the Top's Hidden Price Tag

When the Obama administration dangled $4.35 billion in Race to the Top (RTTT) funds before money-hungry public school systems around the country, educators and politicians in most states reacted as if it were free money for simply singing the school-change tunes the feds wanted to hear.

Of course, the money isn't free at all. It was carved out of the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (the "stimulus"), meaning it is borrowed money for which our grandchildren will be on the hook. It is highly doubtful that those future taxpayers will see benefits anywhere close to equaling a price tag that will soar with added interest.

In addition, local and state bureaucrats who competed for RTTT grants like a pack of wolves snapping at juicy pork chops are finding the grants may cost more than they bring in.

Posted via email from concernedabouteducation's posterous

He's spent alot of time in America's classrooms!

2010-11-06T08:48:00.001-05:00

K-12 Budget Picture - Lean Years Ahead

Boosting productivity, though, requires grappling with the cost of teaching. Teacher salaries and benefits amount to half or more of district spending. The most promising way to control costs without slashing services is to get more value out of each employee. While American schools have been in a multidecade push for class-size reduction--cutting student-teacher ratios from 23:1 in the early 1970s to about 15:1 today--this massive increase in staffing has shown no evidence of academic benefits. While smaller classes are attractive in the abstract, the need to hire more bodies dilutes teacher quality. Indeed, some high-performing countries, like South Korea and Singapore, have some middle school and high school classes with forty or more students per classroom. Increasing aggregate student-teacher ratios by about two students, from 15:1 to 17:1, could cut district spending on salary and benefits by nearly 10 percent.

I suggest that, in the future, he considers class-size for academic subjects only when making a conclusion about the"academic benefits" of class-size reduction.

Please let us know of ANY schools in the US that have a 15:1 ratio in their high school math, science or English courses. It is typical for a US core subject teacher to have 150 students daily.

Posted via email from concernedabouteducation's posterous

Suggestion - Focus on Content

2010-11-06T07:29:00.001-05:00

School Budgets

School budgets should also be focused on content. When school boards (local and state) analyze their budgets, they need to start considering how much of the overall budget supports the actual teaching and learning of real subject content. For example, the largest department in my school is not English, math or science. Is that the case in your area too? How many people does your district employ that do not have direct interaction with students on a daily basis in a teaching capacity?

Local Control

Tax-payers have a right to know remediation rates of their district's students in English, math and science when they enter colleges or universities. This is the best indicator or K-12 success in my opinion. It could shed some light on the effectiveness of certain K-12 curricula used in local districts if that information was included in the information provided.

Is the content taught in your school district college preparatory or not? Do student's grades in your district accurately reflect their understanding of the content knowledge expected at the next level?

Teacher Evaluations

There's alot of talk these days about teacher evaluations with little focus on who is conducting the evaluations. My evaluations are conducted by an administrator who has no familiarity with the subect I'm teaching. I imagine this is the case throughout the country. I wouldn't mind having my salary tied to my evaluation - if it was done by someone who knew mathematics. Otherwise, the evaluator is looking for things that might be beneficial in other areas, but not necessarily in mathematics. (See post on cognitive research)

How much time is spent during an administrator's ed school training on content area cognitive research?

Posted via email from concernedabouteducation's posterous

Math and Science Fact Sheet

2010-09-25T08:38:00.001-05:00

From the National Math + Science Initiative

"The Labor Department projects that by 2014 there will be more than 2 million job openings in science, technology and engineering, while the number of Americans graduating with degrees in those subjects is plummeting." – The Economist, April 12, 2008

Corporate America has a business interest in creating more homegrown engineers, amid growing evidence of an impending shortage. In the U.S., 62 percent of doctoral degrees in engineering went to foreign nationals in 2006, compared with 50 percent in 2000, according to a recent report from the American Society for Engineering Education.

It took slightly less than a decade for the U.S. trade balance in high-technology manufactured goods to shift from a positive $40 billion in 1990 to a negative $50 billion in 2001.

BusinessWeek’s ranking of world information technology companies, only one of the top 10 is based in the U.S.

Only one of the 25 largest initial public offerings (IPOs) of stock in 2006 took place on American exchanges. IPOs in Europe surpassed those in America – in both number and dollar volume.

Nearly 60 percent of patents filed with the U.S. Patent Office in information technology now originate in Asia.

The U.S. share of the world’s leading-edge semi-conductor manufacturing capacity dropped from 36 percent to 11 percent in the past seven years.

Posted via email from concernedabouteducation's posterous

STEM Report to the President (Sept 2010)

2010-09-18T08:12:00.001-05:00

REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT

PREPARE AND INSPIRE:

K-12 EDUCATION IN SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATH (STEM) FOR AMERICA’S FUTURE

In the recommendations of the Executive Summary, you'll find this -

The Federal Government should vigorously support the state-led effort to develop common standards in STEM subjects, by providing financial and technical support to states for (i) rigorous, high-quality professional development aligned with shared standards, and (ii) the development, evaluation, administration, and ongoing improvement of assessments aligned to those standards.

The standards and assessments should reflect the mix of factual knowledge, conceptual understanding, procedural skills, and habits of thought described in recent studies by the National Research Council.

Posted via email from concernedabouteducation's posterous

Wondering What's Up with US Math Ed? Read this!!

2010-09-12T07:21:00.001-05:00

An honest account regarding the junk taught in schools of mathematics education.

The State of the Art of Math Education: Let's Move On

My comment:

[The claims of the]“just in time” approach to learning, in which the tools that students need to master are dictated by the problem itself by not burdening the student's mental inventory with “mind numbing” drills for mastery of a concept or skill until it is actually needed [are not consistent with research in cognitive science]

Link to previous post: http://concernedabouteducation.posterous.com/worth-repeating-21

Posted via email from concernedabouteducation's posterous

American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy

2010-09-12T06:52:00.001-05:00

Politics and the Scoring of Race to the Top Applications

By Daniel H. Bowen

September 10, 2010

Research by William Peterson and Richard Rothstein of the Economic Policy Institute has raised questions about whether RTT possesses the objectivity required of an impartial evaluation process. While this research has dissected the shortcomings of the RTT application process, the extent of RTT's subjectivity remains unaddressed. This Education Stimulus Watch report [the fourth in a series of special reports] uses independent studies of states' education-reform track records on certain RTT criteria to examine disparities between projected and actual scores for the first round of RTT.

Posted via email from concernedabouteducation's posterous

Labor Day Reflections

2010-09-06T07:25:00.001-05:00

Education Pays...

Bureau of Labor Statistics

I found a new dataset while reading Educational Attainment in the World, 1950–2010.

It's here:

International Education Attainment Data Base

Posted via email from concernedabouteducation's posterous

Using Student Test Scores to Evaluate Teachers?

2010-09-01T05:22:00.001-05:00

Policy Breifing Paper #278 from the Economic Policy Institute

PROBLEMS WITH THE USE OF STUDENT TEST SCORES TO EVALUATE TEACHERS

Posted via email from concernedabouteducation's posterous

Reliable National Mathematics Achievement Test Nonexistent

2010-08-21T07:40:00.001-05:00

David Klein's article What do the NAEP math scores really measure? (to appear in the Notices of the American Mathematical Society, Dec. 2010) puts into serious question the use of NAEP as an external audit of the developing Common Core assessments.

Until such time as a reliable national mathematics achievement test comes into existence, the plethora of education research articles that base their findings on NAEP math scores should be considered with reservations. More reliable, for the time being, are state administered K-12 mathematics assessments directly tied to the content of credible state standards, as in the case of California.

Posted via email from concernedabouteducation's posterous

Historical Disconnect - Cut Scores and NAEP Achievement

2010-08-02T19:13:00.001-05:00

The School Administrator June 2008 Number 6, Vol. 65

Cut Scores, NAEP achievement Levels and Their Discontents

The attempts of political bodies to bludgeon public schools with arbitrary performance standards

[selected excerpts]

In 1988, Congress created the National Assessment Governing Board and charged it with establishing standards. NAEP [then] became prescriptive, reporting not only what people did know but also laying claim to what they should know. The attempt to establish achievement levels in terms of the proportion of students at the basic, proficient and advanced levels failed.

The governing board hired a team of three well-known evaluators and psychometricians to evaluate the process — Daniel Stufflebeam of Western Michigan University, Richard Jaeger of the University of North Carolina at Greensboro and Michael Scriven of NOVA Southeastern University. The team delivered its final report on Aug. 23, 1991. This process does not work, the team averred, saying: “[T]he technical difficulties are extremely serious … these standards and the results obtained from them should under no circumstances be used as a baseline or benchmark … the procedures used in the exercise should under no circumstances be used as a model.”

NAGB, led by Chester E. Finn Jr., summarily fired the team, or at least tried to. Because the researchers already had delivered the final report, the contract required payment.

The inappropriate use of these levels continues today. The achievement levels have been rejected by the Government Accountability Office, the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Education, the Center for Research in Evaluation, Student Standards and Testing and the Brookings Institution, as well as by individual psychometricians.

I have repeatedly observed that the NAEP results do not mesh with those from international comparisons. In the 1995 Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study, or TIMSS, assessment, American 4th graders finished third among 26 participating nations in science, but the NAEP science results from the same year stated that only 31 percent of them were proficient or better.

At the press conference announcing the [U.S. Chamber of Commerce/Center for American Progress jointly developed report “Leaders and Laggards” in February 2007], an incensed John Podesta, president and CEO of the Center for American Progress, declared: “It is unconscionable to me that there is not a single state in the country where a majority of 4th and 8th graders are proficient in math and reading.” He based his claim on the 2005 NAEP assessments.

Podesta could have saved himself some embarrassment had he read the recent study by Gary Phillips, formerly the acting commissioner of statistics at the National Center for Education Statistics. Phillips, now at the American Institutes for Research, had asked: “If students in other nations sat for NAEP assessments in reading, mathematics and science, how many of them would be proficient?”

Because we have scores for American students on NAEP and TIMSS and scores for students in other countries on TIMSS, it is possible to estimate the performance of other nations if their students took NAEP assessments.

How many of the 45 countries in TIMSS have a majority of their students proficient in reading? Zero, said Phillips. Sweden, the highest scoring nation, would show about one-third of its students proficient while the United States had 31 percent. In science, only two nations would have a majority of their students labeled proficient or better while six countries would cross that threshold in mathematics.

NAEP reports issued prior to the Bush administration noted that the commissioner of education statistics had declared the NAEP achievement levels usable only in a “developmental” way. That is, only until someone developed something better. But no one was or is working to develop anything better. When I wrote an op-ed piece for The Washington Post (“A Test Everyone Will Fail,” May 20, 2007), an indictment of the achievement levels, I got feedback that officials at the National Assessment Governing Board were quite satisfied with the levels as they are. That can only mean NAGB approves of the achievement levels used as sledgehammers to bludgeon public schools. They serve no other function.

Posted via email from concernedabouteducation's posterous

Common Core's Standards Still Don't Make the Grade!!

2010-08-02T08:38:00.001-05:00

Common Core’s Standards Still Don’t Make the Grade

Why Massachusetts and California Must Retain Control Over Their Academic Destinies
Pioneer Institute White Paper by Sandra Stotsky and Ze’ev Wurman, July 30, 2010

The case for national standards rests in part on the need to remedy the inconsistent and inferior quality of many state standards and tests in order to equalize academic expectations for all students. The argument also addresses the urgent need to increase academic achievement for all students. In mathematics and science in particular, the United States needs much higher levels of achievement than its students currently demonstrate for it to remain competitive in a global economy.

Posted via email from concernedabouteducation's posterous

Review of Common Core Math Standards

2010-07-30T08:55:00.001-05:00

Professor Milgram's Full Review w/ Detailed Grade Level Comments

Download now or preview on posterous
Milgram's_Review_w_Detailed_Comments_on_Common_Core_Math_Standards.pdf (1471 KB)

Posted via email from concernedabouteducation's posterous

Silenced Dissent

2010-07-29T08:02:00.001-05:00

Expertise Lost at Crucial Time

7.29.10 - GOVERNOR PATRICK has purged the state Board of Elementary and Secondary Education of the two members who held the deepest suspicions of the newly-adopted national Common Core standards in math and English. On a number of other issues,

Sandra Stotsky and Thomas Fortmann were the two board members who posed the most challenging questions — in public — to state education officials. In declining to reappoint the two, Patrick sacrificed a diversity of opinion that has served the board well.

Posted via email from concernedabouteducation's posterous

National Standards and Assessments Craze

2010-07-28T07:13:00.001-05:00

AND an interesting post from Jay P. Greene on Checker Finn's change of mind...
Checker made an excellent case against national standards… in 1997.

The current national standards and assessment craze has similarly not been authorized by Congress and is being spear-headed by the very same Council of Chief State School Officers that Checker denounced as “one of the establishment’s most change-averse crews.”

Posted via email from concernedabouteducation's posterous

RttT Finalists

2010-07-27T16:51:00.001-05:00

A total of 46 states and the District of Columbia applied for either the first or second rounds – or both. The 19 finalists are: Arizona, California, Colorado, the District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and South Carolina.

Posted via email from concernedabouteducation's posterous

The Money Question!

2010-07-27T07:00:00.001-05:00

Jay P. Greene's Blog July 26

As often in education-reform efforts, the procedure has been hijacked by the tar babies.The hijacking takes the form of contracts that are already being signed with neither congressional approval nor independent oversight.

Why was Congressional support essential then (in 1997) but not now?

Posted via email from concernedabouteducation's posterous

Good Questions!

2010-07-26T17:43:00.001-05:00

Who Said That about National Standards and Tests!?

Cato@Liberty

Why was it troubling that CCSSO had a central role in 1997, but it’s apparently hunky-dory in 2010?

Why was it a bad thing to blow off critics in 1997, but alright today?

Posted via email from concernedabouteducation's posterous

Proposed Math Standards Unteachable

2010-07-26T07:22:00.001-05:00

Viewpoints: Proposed math standards unteachable

By Bill Evers and Ze'ev Wurman

Algebra I is taught in eighth grade in high-performing foreign countries, and this is also recommended by America's 2008 National Math Panel. California has made immense progress in this direction in the past decade, and we now lead the nation in the percentage of algebra-takers in eighth grade. Regrettably, all these gains are in danger of being reversed because of these ill-advised standards recommendations.

Bill Evers is a research fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution and member of the institution's Koret Task Force on K-12 Education. He was formerly U.S. Assistant Secretary of Education. Ze'ev Wurman is an executive at a Silicon Valley high-technology company. He was formerly a senior adviser in the U.S. Department of Education.

Posted via email from concernedabouteducation's posterous

Fordham's New Report

2010-07-22T08:37:00.001-05:00

I don't agree with Fordham's analysis of Common Core Math Standards. I believe that they are much too weak at the high school level to prepare our children for competitiveness in a global economy. With that said, I thought that readers might be interested to see the Fordham Institute's new report comparing each state's mathematics and ELA standards to Common Core.

The State of State Standards--and the Common Core--in 2010

July 21, Thomas B. Fordham Institute

Posted via email from concernedabouteducation's posterous

Room for Debate July 21

2010-07-22T08:03:00.001-05:00

New York Times Room for Debate Blog, July 21

Will National Standards Improve Education?

[The answer to this question seems to be "NO"]

Contributors

Equalizing Mediocrity, Sandra Stotsky, University of Arkansas
Common Standards Are Helpful, Richard D. Kahlenberg, Century Foundation
Making a Bad System Worse, Neal P. McCluskey, Cato Institute
At-Risk Children Will Benefit, Michael Goldstein, MATCH Charter School
Uniformity Is Not Equality, Alfie Kohn, author
Understandable, but Wrong, Bruce Fuller, University of California, Berkeley

Posted via email from concernedabouteducation's posterous

Ever So Quietly, National Standards Spread

2010-07-16T09:43:00.001-05:00

Ever So Quietly, National Standards Spread

Neal McCluskey of the Cato@Liberty

If you are not familiar with the Cato Institute, their mission is to increase the understanding of public policies based on the principles of limited government, free markets, individual liberty, and peace. The Institute will use the most effective means to originate, advocate, promote, and disseminate applicable policy proposals that create free, open, and civil societies in the United States and throughout the world.

Posted via email from concernedabouteducation's posterous

PUBLIC SCRUTINY is A GOOD THING!

2010-07-13T13:40:00.001-05:00

California Panel Scrutinizes Common [National] Standards

If you find it interesting to track the common-standards movement, you might want to

cast your eye toward the West Coast. Things are getting interesting in California.

California Dreamin'or Is It Reality?

Posted via email from concernedabouteducation's posterous

Preparing America to Compete through Math Ed

2010-07-11T09:21:00.001-05:00

A comparison of proposed US Common Core math standard to standards of selected Asian countries.

The proposed Common Core standard is similar in earlier grades but has significantly lower expectations with respect to algebra and geometry than the published standards of other countries I examined. The Common Core standards document is prepared with less care and is less useful to teachers and math ed administrators than the other standards I examined. I have reservations about the Common Core standards regarding statistics in grades 7 and 8.

Wurman-Evers Cascading Plan for a Common Core Pathway to Algebra in 8th Grade

Ze'ev Wurman & Bill Evers - The California Academic Content Standards Commission is considering adopting the national Common Core standards in place of the state's existing standards and at the same time also modestly augmenting the Common Core standards in order to maintain the rigor of California's expectations of students.

Posted via email from concernedabouteducation's posterous

Mathematics Education

Under the Guise of Improving #Education #tcot

US Competitiveness at Risk: Milgram and Stotsky Quoted on #CommonCore

GOP Supports Liberal Education Agenda???

UNAMERICAN: "Individual 'profiles' must be considered in the light of goals pursued by the wider society"

National Standards=>=>National Student Database

Class Warfare

Education Task Force Approves Anti-Common Core Model Legislation

Important Rebuttal on Common Core Math Promotion

Reading Tea Leaves

Waiver Overreach Without Congressional Approval

Where To Start?

WEAK MATH >>> WEAKER SCIENCE

It's the weekend!

Our Government MUST STOP FINANCING Arithmetic and Algebra Avoidance

Call To Action!!

CUT FUNDING 4 CCS/RttT NOW

Misleading the Public with "Education"

ENJOY YOUR INDEPENDENCE!

House Education and Workforce Committee is Asking the Right Questions!!!

Threat to by-pass Congress to avoid "train wreck"

Rare Earth Elements: The Secret Ingredients of Everything

Ignorance or Apathy?

FIND TRUTH in American Education!

Good Question... Better Answer!

Should We Be Worried? (YES)

Reauthorization of ESEA

A 'Common' education disaster

Restoring Sanity

Common Core $tate $tandards

National Education Standards

THIS IS SUPER SCARY!

Just say "NO" to National Standards and Streamline U.S. DoE

Common Core - Closing the Door on Innovation!

High Quality Education is America's Best Defense!

The Voice of the People - Unraveling Common Core

Hugely Important Matter!

USA! USA! USA!

Lecture-Style Presentations Lead to Higher Achievement in Math and Science

TX Sovereignty ~ Common Core Standards

The Price of "Innovation"

Grades vs. Learning

Important Information!

by Clifford AdelmanSenior Research Analyst, U.S. Department of Education

Everyday Math and TERC Investigations = Bad Math Ed in US

What a novel idea!!

Critical Common Core Concerns (C^4)

Teacher Evaluations

Inspiration!

School Boards are Accountable to Patrons!

Congress - Stop the Madness!!

Poor Legislation Is Not The Answer

Taxpayers aren't even in the room.

Representative Government Undermined

Get the Facts!

Congress must prevent federal control of the content of public education.

Support Wisconsin Governor Walker

History Lesson for YOUR Legislators!

Can They? Or Are They?

Keeping an Open Mind while Looking Ahead

The Innovation Agenda

State of the Union and Education

Regress to Focus on Inputs Rather than Outcomes

Winning the Future?

Commoditizing Education

Local Control

Happy New Year!!

Educational Insanity

Wake Up Call !!

Improve STEM with more red tape??

Budget Crisis = Historic Opportunity????

CAN YOU THIS B.S.?

WHEN HAS AN INCREASED FEDERAL ROLE

IN ANYTHING

RESULTED IN IMPROVEMENT??

Trade practice threat to US manufacturing - from EPI

Comments on the USTR investigation of

China’s subsidies to green industries

Robert E. Scott November 17, 2010

What does the future hold for public education?

by Clifford Adelman
Senior Research Analyst, U.S. Department of Education

Robert E. Scott
November 17, 2010