DON'T GIVE UP STATE RIGHTS!! SUPPORT MO HCR 81!!
Economic Policy Institute Briefing Paper #263
LET’S DO THE NUMBERS DOE's “Race to the Top” Offers Muddled Path...
(p7) In sum, Massachusetts' willingness to permit the public to comment on its academic standars, combined with a few quirks in the weighting system, cost the state hundreds of millions of dollars.
Showing posts with label math standards. Show all posts
Showing posts with label math standards. Show all posts
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Saturday, April 17, 2010
Saturday, April 3, 2010
*NEW* US Coalition for World Class Math
UNITED STATES COALITION for WORLD CLASS MATH
REPORT ON MARCH 2010 COMMON CORE STANDARDS DRAFT
AVAILABLE HERE
REPORT ON MARCH 2010 COMMON CORE STANDARDS DRAFT
AVAILABLE HERE
Friday, March 19, 2010
National Standards (CCSSI)
The high school math standards seem to me to leave a whole lot to be desired - far below our current expectations for college preparedness.
If you have the time, compare these standards to the Major Topics of School Algebra in the National Mathematics Advisory Panel's Report, then take a look at current ACT math content.
Wurman and Stotsky: New Standards will set schools back
[They must be talking about me!]
High school math teachers will look in vain for course standards in Algebra II, pre-calculus, or trigonometry. The drafters deem algebra, which the prestigious National Math Advisory Panel identified as the key to higher math study, as an outdated organizing principle.
You can find CCSSI standards HERE
Comments are due to CCSSI by April 2, but you might also consider posting them publicly somewhere else.
More information available HERE
If you have the time, compare these standards to the Major Topics of School Algebra in the National Mathematics Advisory Panel's Report, then take a look at current ACT math content.
Wurman and Stotsky: New Standards will set schools back
[They must be talking about me!]
High school math teachers will look in vain for course standards in Algebra II, pre-calculus, or trigonometry. The drafters deem algebra, which the prestigious National Math Advisory Panel identified as the key to higher math study, as an outdated organizing principle.
You can find CCSSI standards HERE
Comments are due to CCSSI by April 2, but you might also consider posting them publicly somewhere else.
More information available HERE
Sunday, February 28, 2010
News in the Nation
The United STATES Coalition for Wold Class Math has a page devoted to "News Around the Nation"
Everyone MUST READ the Pioneer Institutes' Feb 2010 "Why Race to the Middle?"
Everyone MUST READ the Pioneer Institutes' Feb 2010 "Why Race to the Middle?"
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Mathematically Sound Foundations
Math Programs and Reviews
Everything you'll need to learn about the push toward National Education Standards
GREAT COMICS TOO!!
Everything you'll need to learn about the push toward National Education Standards
GREAT COMICS TOO!!
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Yesterday's Op-Ed
Ze'ev Wurman
"National standards will affect our children and our economic future for years to come."
Yes, it will affect Missouri too!
Sunday, December 13, 2009
State Sovereignty - RTT funds for Education $tandard$
Yet, if the President and Congress are going to use carrots and sticks to create national standards, we need to look for a way out of the current Common Core morass. The federal rules for the RttT money could not and do not explicitly require the adoption of CCSSI’s standards. Instead, the rules provide a general requirement: States are to participate in a “consortium of states” that is developing a common set of K–12 standards which are “internationally benchmarked” and tied to “college and career readiness” and that includes “a significant number of States.”
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Concerns about state sovereignty raised at the House Education and Labor Committee
Hearing on Dec 8: http://tiny.cc/coercion
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Who Needs Mathematicians for Math, Anyway?
NAEP Mathematics: C
TIMSS Mathematics: A
PISA Mathematics: D
Mathematically speaking, NAEP is a mediocre national assessment, while TIMSS is an excellent international assessment.
So, why is the National Center for Education Statistics spending valuable time and resources producing reports like this one?
(By the way, this report was about performance standards, not content standards.)
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
US Coalition for World Class Math!!
*Press Release*
"Extraordinary numbers of grassroots groups have formed in recent years to learn more about current issues in mathematics education and to promote improvements in K-12 mathematics curricula," says Coalition co-founder Timotha Trigg. "Many parents believe there is already a crisis in mathematics education and fear that poor standards, if adopted by states on a national scale, would make the situation even worse."
Sunday, June 28, 2009
MO Governor Signs-on to National Standards Initiative
(click to see the article)
"Nixon, in signing the national memorandum of agreement, made Missouri the 47th state to agree to help develop a list of grade-by-grade core skills that all students in the country should learn."
This could be a good thing...
IF NSI (NGA/CCSSO) JUST LISTENS TO SUBJECT-MATTER EXPERTS -THE RESULTS OF THEIR EFFORTS MIGHT ACTUALLY BENEFIT STUDENTS!
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Important to Know...
California signed-on to the national standards initiative
WITH CONDITIONS.
Penned by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Board of Education President Ted Mitchell, and State Superintendent Jack O'Connell, the Golden State put its name on the dotted line to "develop common core standards" and "participate in the international benchmarking efforts."
In my opinion, California's math standards should set the bar to measure our national standards. I'm SO GLAD that their state officials "cannot commit to adopting [common standards] until [they] have determined that they meet or exceed [their] own."
WAY TO GO CA! Since NGA/CCSSO won't disclose the membership of their writing workgroups, this would probably be a wise stance for all states to adopt.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
This Country Deserves Better!!
Sandra Stotsky tells us what’s what:
“If another country wanted other countries to respect its educational system and the reforms it was trying to make, who would it choose to lead such an important professional project as the development of its national standards in mathematics and in the language of its educational system itself? In any other country in the world, one would expect a distinguished mathematician at the college level to be asked to chair the mathematics standards-writing committee–someone who commands the respect of the mathematics profession (and obviously is an expert on mathematics). For the language standards-writing committee, one would likewise expect an eminent scholar in a college-level department–someone whose command of the language and understanding of the texts that inform the development of this language could not be questioned. If the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers had thought about national pride (and national need) as well as academic/educational expertise, then all of us would respect the Common Core Initiative and look forward with eagerness to the drafts the NGA and CCSSO have promised to make public in July.
These two organizations could have followed, for example, the exemplary procedures followed by the National Mathematics Advisory Panel, on which I had the privilege to serve. The Panel was chaired by the former president of one of the major universities in the country, all Panel members were identified at the outset, their qualifications were made known to the pubic, their procedures were open to the public and taped as well, and the final product was hammered out in public, after dozens of reviewers provided critical comments.
But instead of choosing nationally known scholars to chair and staff these committees–to assure us of the integrity and quality of the product–the NGA and the CCSSO have, for reasons best known to themselves, treated the initiative as a private game of their own. The NGA and the CCSSO haven’t even bothered to inform the public who is chairing these committees, who is on them, why they were chosen, what their credentials are, and why we should have any confidence whatsoever in what they come up with.
One person has announced on his own to the press and to a state department of education that he is chairing the mathematics standards-writing committee. He has not been contradicted by anyone at NGA or CCSSO, so we must assume he’s for real. It turns out he is an English major with no academic degrees in mathematics whatsoever. No one has yet announced on his/her own that he/she is chairing the English standards-writing committee. One wag has already wondered whether this person might be a mathematics major with no academic degrees in English. But it’s possible the sad joke in mathematics is not being repeated in English.
This country deserved better for a project of such national importance.”
“If another country wanted other countries to respect its educational system and the reforms it was trying to make, who would it choose to lead such an important professional project as the development of its national standards in mathematics and in the language of its educational system itself? In any other country in the world, one would expect a distinguished mathematician at the college level to be asked to chair the mathematics standards-writing committee–someone who commands the respect of the mathematics profession (and obviously is an expert on mathematics). For the language standards-writing committee, one would likewise expect an eminent scholar in a college-level department–someone whose command of the language and understanding of the texts that inform the development of this language could not be questioned. If the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers had thought about national pride (and national need) as well as academic/educational expertise, then all of us would respect the Common Core Initiative and look forward with eagerness to the drafts the NGA and CCSSO have promised to make public in July.
These two organizations could have followed, for example, the exemplary procedures followed by the National Mathematics Advisory Panel, on which I had the privilege to serve. The Panel was chaired by the former president of one of the major universities in the country, all Panel members were identified at the outset, their qualifications were made known to the pubic, their procedures were open to the public and taped as well, and the final product was hammered out in public, after dozens of reviewers provided critical comments.
But instead of choosing nationally known scholars to chair and staff these committees–to assure us of the integrity and quality of the product–the NGA and the CCSSO have, for reasons best known to themselves, treated the initiative as a private game of their own. The NGA and the CCSSO haven’t even bothered to inform the public who is chairing these committees, who is on them, why they were chosen, what their credentials are, and why we should have any confidence whatsoever in what they come up with.
One person has announced on his own to the press and to a state department of education that he is chairing the mathematics standards-writing committee. He has not been contradicted by anyone at NGA or CCSSO, so we must assume he’s for real. It turns out he is an English major with no academic degrees in mathematics whatsoever. No one has yet announced on his/her own that he/she is chairing the English standards-writing committee. One wag has already wondered whether this person might be a mathematics major with no academic degrees in English. But it’s possible the sad joke in mathematics is not being repeated in English.
This country deserved better for a project of such national importance.”
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Tax Dollars at Work - Reprise!
Everyday Math and Investigations are
two of the Elementary Programs given
competitive priority for eMints/METS grants.
(see #8 at above link)
The math programs listed there are the same
programs in the report
On Evaluating Curricular Effectiveness:
Juding the Quality of K-12 Mathematics Evaluations
Committee for a Review of the Evaluation Data
on the Effectiveness of NSF-Supported and Commercially
Generated Mathematics Curriculum Materials
two of the Elementary Programs given
competitive priority for eMints/METS grants.
(see #8 at above link)
The math programs listed there are the same
programs in the report
On Evaluating Curricular Effectiveness:
Juding the Quality of K-12 Mathematics Evaluations
Committee for a Review of the Evaluation Data
on the Effectiveness of NSF-Supported and Commercially
Generated Mathematics Curriculum Materials
In response to our charge, the committee finds that:
The corpus of evaluation studies as a whole across the 19 programs studied does not permit one to determine the effectiveness of individual programs with high degree of certainty, due to the restricted number of studies for any particular curriculum, limitations in the array of methods used, and the uneven quality of the studies.
Therefore, according to our charge, we recommend that:
No second phase of this evaluation review should be conducted to determine the effectiveness of any particular program or set of curricular programs dependent on the current database.
Your tax dollars are at work, promoting these
commercial products in MO
commercial products in MO
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Presentation to the State Board of Education
At the bottom of MissouriMath.Org there's a new entry
about the presentation to the
State Board of Education concerning
our state math standards.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
NEW ENTRIES-MISSOURI MATH COALITION
Please share this information with your local
representatives and school board members.
There's an informational flyer available
there that you can print up and distribute.
UNITED WE STAND!!
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Committee on Education and Labor Hearing
Rigorous State-Led Common Standards and Assessments
Here's a link to the members page of the House Committee on Education and Labor. http://edlabor.house.gov/about/members/
Here is a link to the release on common standards.
http://edlabor.house.gov/newsroom/2009/04/congress-must-support-state-ef.shtml
Here is a link to the George Miller, the committee Chairman's web page, including a means by which to contact him. http://georgemiller.house.gov/
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Arne Duncan in the Chicago Tribune
Close to home and right on target regarding
mathematics standards and assessment in the Show Me State.
"In too many places, including Illinois, we are lying to children now. [When] we tell a child they are meeting the state standards, the logical implication is that child's on track to be successful. In too many places, including Illinois, if you are meeting state standards you are barely qualified to graduate from high school and you are totally unqualified to go to a university and graduate," he said.
Saturday, March 14, 2009
IT'S NO PICNIC
New York Times Op-Ed
by David Brooks
In the article, Brooks notes that some states seem to be racing to the bottom, while others have set rigorous proficiency standards. In my opinion, this is especially true of mathematics education in Missouri.
From the article:
As Education Secretary Arne Duncan told me, “We’ve seen a race to the bottom. States are lying to children. They are lying to parents. They’re ignoring failure, and that’s unacceptable. We have to be fierce.”The administration also will give money to states like Massachusetts that have rigorous proficiency standards. The goal is to replace the race to the bottom with a race to the top, as states are compelled to raise their standards if they hope to get federal money.
Compare:
Notice that the work in Massachusetts involved mathematicians.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)