Back in July of 2009, I posted THIS about the adoption of Common Core in Missouri. I was in the process of discovering that our governance structure regarding education in Missouri was incredibly top-down. Missouri citizens and their representatives in the legislature were not even aware of Common Core, let alone the strangle hold it would place on the daily functions of our local schools and the lives of our students and their families.
Changing the governance structure in Missouri's educational system is of utmost importance to ensure that any "initiative" like Common Core is publicly scrutinized and vetted by our education leaders, our legislators, and Missouri citizens.
This is why I strongly support HJR 74 which would allow Missouri voters to decide on the November ballot if they would like to see their State Board of Education members ELECTED, with one coming from each of OUR congressional districts. I think it's a FABULOUS idea!!
If you agree, you can show your support for HJR 74 here:
http://www.libertytools.org/LibertyTools/witness/witness2.php?template=48
Since the hearing was schedule for TOMORROW NIGHT (AT 9PM!!) when few citizens can attend, it is very important to have as many witness forms completed in support of HJR as possible to present to the committee.
Fight the Good Fight!!
Lisa Jones
Sunday, April 6, 2014
Tuesday, January 21, 2014
Legislation on Education in Missouri
Please
take a few short minutes to look up your legislator’s
email
and
drop them a note with your opinions on the following:
(I
SUPPORT THESE)
Establishes the Joint Committee on the Tenth Amendment
Prohibits the State Board of Education, the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, and school districts from implementing the Common Core State Standards
Prohibits the State Board of Education from adopting and implementing the standards for public schools developed by the Common Core Standards Initiative
(I OPPOSE
THIS)
HB
1139
Cookson
167.227. 5.
A school district shall require a student who scores less than
proficient on a statewide assessment to
attend the summer school term immediately following the school term in which
the student was assessed.
Monday, January 6, 2014
DESE “Thumbing Its Nose” at #MOLEG
Happy New Year Everyone!!
HB 2 Appropriates money for the expenses, grants, refunds, and distributions of the State Board of Education and Department of Elementary and Secondary Education Effective Date: 8/28/2013
Section 2.050. To the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
2 For the purpose of receiving and expending grants, donations, contracts,
3 and payments from private, federal, and other governmental
4 agencies which may become available between sessions of the
5 General Assembly provided that the General Assembly shall be
6 notified of the source of any new funds and the purpose for which
7 they shall be expended, in writing, prior to the use of said funds,
8 and further provided that no funds shall be used to implement the
9 Common Core Standards
From Federal and Other Funds………………….........$10,000,000
From Federal and Other Funds………………….........$10,000,000
I wonder if DESE disseminated any information to districts on HB2’s restriction on Common Core implementation? Are local school boards aware that their current practices may be in conflict with this legislation.
All of DESE’s math and science discretionary grants involve implementation of Common Core Standards and were not revised after passage of HB2. The deadline for these was September 18, 2013.
Page 6 of the K-6 Math Initiative (which is the same for the K-6 Science excepts it reads "National Educational Standards for Science" rather than Common Core, the ELL reads "Common Core")
C. Use of Funds
(3) Provide follow-up training throughout the year to the academy mathematics science teachers that shall: (a) Directly relate to the mathematics curriculum, and focus secondarily on pedagogy; (b) Enhance the ability of the teacher to understand and use the Missouri Mathematics Grade-Level Expectations and the Common Core State standards for mathematics to develop and/or revise appropriate curricula; (c) Train teachers to use curricula that are based on scientific research, aligned with the Missouri Mathematics Grade-Level Expectations and Common Core State Standards for mathematics, and are active learning-oriented, inquiry-based, differentiated to meet diverse student needs, and concept/content-based;
I was also interested in this part of HB2 because high quality PD, focused on content, really is essential to professional growth in teaching.
Section 2.115. To the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
2 For the Instructional Improvement Grants Program pursuant to Title II
3 Improving Teacher Quality
From Federal Funds……………………...........................$59,348,890
From Federal Funds……………………...........................$59,348,890
So I googled:
and I found the second document had been revised in Aug 2013. (The same month that HB2 had passed) I find no mention of Common Core with respect to Professional Development at all in the revised document, however ALL of the high school math PD currently taking place in my district is on Common Core.
This (again) leads me to believe that local school boards are not aware of the legislation.
And then of course, we have the real kicker!! DESE’s October 3, 2013 News Release announced the *New* Missouri Learning Standards website: http://www.missourilearningstandards.com/
Any confusion that may be caused by their re-labeling Common Core as Missouri Learning Standards can quickly be dispelled by following the content supports for teachers here: http://www.missourilearningstandards.com/teachers/ which lead straight back to CCSS.
Tuesday, November 5, 2013
Professor Milgram's Nov 4, 2013 Statement on Common Core Math Standards
Many parents across the country are currently expressing concerns over the content of their childrens' math lessons, many of which are said to be "common core" aligned. The statement below is published with permission of Professor Milgram. It may provide a little insight on math education issues brought to light recently due to the common core initiative.
I believe that although the elementary math standards are an improvement over those of many states, unfortunately the focus on the "Standards for Mathematical Practice" - rather than math content - creates an avenue for unproductive folly. (yes, that's my opinion) The secondary content standards are too weak, a point that I've made many times before.
Best wishes to all parents, grandparents and teachers as they seek the truth on the best way forward in improving education for children. Lisa Jones
So, all in all, I judge that we would be better off if the standards would just go away.
Jim
In his first point, I believe that Professor Milgram is referring to the Open Letter to U.S. Secretary of Education, Richard Riley, from 1999. Check It Out Here
I believe that although the elementary math standards are an improvement over those of many states, unfortunately the focus on the "Standards for Mathematical Practice" - rather than math content - creates an avenue for unproductive folly. (yes, that's my opinion) The secondary content standards are too weak, a point that I've made many times before.
Best wishes to all parents, grandparents and teachers as they seek the truth on the best way forward in improving education for children. Lisa Jones
Statement
of Jim Milgram, November 4, 2013
I
don't endorse a blanket condemnation of the Common Core Math Standards since
there are definite positives in the lower grade content standards. They really are significantly better than the
standards that were written by 90% of the states IN GRADES K-6 or K-7. But the
problems with the overall math standards are huge, or even more than huge.
First, while some of the Mathematical Practices standards are ok, they provide a forum for the fuzzy math cranks and a path to re-approve most of the horrible math texts we found 15 or so years back and mostly got rid of then. They also provide a poor perspective on "what mathematics is" and should never have been at the beginning of the document where they give the superficial reader the impression that this is what mathematics is all about. It isn't.
Second, the objectives of the 8 - 12 material are not what one might think they should be. The real intent appears to be a total focus on the "efficiency" aspect of Ed School dogma. Since most students will never "use" higher level math, it is mostly suppressed, except for the part that I more or less forced them to add covering Algebra II. But that material is horribly incomplete and only provides a pathway for most students that leads nowhere and prepares them for nothing but truly dead end jobs.
Third, the standards were put together too fast by McCallum and Zimba, with the obstructive tactics of Daro only designed to minimize content as far as I can tell. All three of them were amateurs at standards writing, and appear to have had little to no idea of what actually goes on in the curricula of the high achieving countries. As a result, there are too many errors and inconsistencies in the standards and exemplars themselves.
First, while some of the Mathematical Practices standards are ok, they provide a forum for the fuzzy math cranks and a path to re-approve most of the horrible math texts we found 15 or so years back and mostly got rid of then. They also provide a poor perspective on "what mathematics is" and should never have been at the beginning of the document where they give the superficial reader the impression that this is what mathematics is all about. It isn't.
Second, the objectives of the 8 - 12 material are not what one might think they should be. The real intent appears to be a total focus on the "efficiency" aspect of Ed School dogma. Since most students will never "use" higher level math, it is mostly suppressed, except for the part that I more or less forced them to add covering Algebra II. But that material is horribly incomplete and only provides a pathway for most students that leads nowhere and prepares them for nothing but truly dead end jobs.
Third, the standards were put together too fast by McCallum and Zimba, with the obstructive tactics of Daro only designed to minimize content as far as I can tell. All three of them were amateurs at standards writing, and appear to have had little to no idea of what actually goes on in the curricula of the high achieving countries. As a result, there are too many errors and inconsistencies in the standards and exemplars themselves.
So, all in all, I judge that we would be better off if the standards would just go away.
Jim
In his first point, I believe that Professor Milgram is referring to the Open Letter to U.S. Secretary of Education, Richard Riley, from 1999. Check It Out Here
Thursday, October 31, 2013
An Interesting Common Core Exchange
From Fordham
54min50sec
Question: Garrett Fryer
American Youth Policy Forum
Was there ever a discussion,
when you all were designing it, to implement it on a kindergarten level and
letting it grow with the students as they aged on through each grade, as
oppossed to implementing it with the entire school system nation wide?
Answer: Jason Zimba
This is something that states
have each approached differently. Some
states have done something more like that, some states have done something less
like that. I seem to remember at one
point I saw a MA plan where the grade level wasn’t the key parameter, but they
had a Venn diagram, what we do now the Common Core doesn’t do, what the Common
Core does that we don’t, and then what sort of overlap, where we want to do it
better. In year one, we’re gonna focus on the overlap and do it better. In year
two, we’ll drop things… and then in year three, we’ll add… I got the details of that wrong, but… my only point is that
different states all approached it differently, and we may find out that some
states were much wiser than others in this way.
Singapore has a long
standing, high functioning system in which they not only revise their syllabus
ever so often, but they do it actually on the basis of how kids do, so think
about that, a performance-based loop, a feedback loop. Which is something we
are taking halting steps toward, but can only image. And so roughly every six years or so, they’ll
put out tweaks to the thing. This year I
noticed that they’ve rolled out a new thing in kindergarten.
I wonder... How in the world
can one "image" OR take "halting steps toward" creating a
"high functioning system" based on a "performance-based feedback
loop" when we are STARTING with a top-down DESIGN by the name of Common
Core?
A problem with Common Core Math Standards at the High School Level
I've explained my concern about the weak high school math in Common Core many times before, but here it goes again as I’ve had many questions lately.
In the Common Core Math Standards, Algebra I is not completed in 8th. That creates a problem for students interested in stem fields, and also for students that may have latent abilities in mathematics which may not develop in high school as a result.
CC high school math (years 1 to 3) is an amalgam similar to Alg1, Geo, Alg2(light) in my opinion.
There are currently 4 years in high school. Common Core lays out 3 years but did not provide a stem alternative for acceleration during those 3 years, so this is what we have to work with:
1- CC hs math year 1
2- CC hs math year 2
3- CC hs math year 3 – doesn’t complete Alg 2 imo and would not prepare
students to take PreCalc/Trig at my school currently.
4 - Students have the following options for math during their senior year. None of these include AP Calculus. Remember, the College Board found that Common Core high school math does not “reconcile” with AP Calculus (and I agree!)
The students’ choices at this point are limited to three options:
A) AP Statistics B) PreCalc/Trig or C) try to complete both simultaneously
Option A) If they chose the AP Stats class senior year, to try to get some college credit while in high school, then they would really be two years behind in stem math progression on entry to college, and would have also had a entire school year between Algebra 2 (light) and PreCalc/CollegeAlg/Trig - (definitely not an ideal situation...)
BTW – This option is what a College Board Senior Vice President recommended to school superintendents! “If you’re worried about AP Calculus and fidelity to the Common Core, we recommend AP Statistics and AP Computer Science”
Option B) They could take precalc/trig during senior year, but as some of you know, the ACT determines scholarship money for many, many students. Efforts on that test and applications for colleges and scholarship start late junior year and finish early senior year for most students. (Ask one!)
Option C) is not viable in my opinion. The slow pace of Common Core math from 7th though 11th grades leaves students woefully underprepared for trigonometry in particular and will create an unnecessarily steep learning curve if they choose this “option” during senior year.
In the Common Core Math Standards, Algebra I is not completed in 8th. That creates a problem for students interested in stem fields, and also for students that may have latent abilities in mathematics which may not develop in high school as a result.
CC high school math (years 1 to 3) is an amalgam similar to Alg1, Geo, Alg2(light) in my opinion.
There are currently 4 years in high school. Common Core lays out 3 years but did not provide a stem alternative for acceleration during those 3 years, so this is what we have to work with:
1- CC hs math year 1
2- CC hs math year 2
3- CC hs math year 3 – doesn’t complete Alg 2 imo and would not prepare
students to take PreCalc/Trig at my school currently.
4 - Students have the following options for math during their senior year. None of these include AP Calculus. Remember, the College Board found that Common Core high school math does not “reconcile” with AP Calculus (and I agree!)
The students’ choices at this point are limited to three options:
A) AP Statistics B) PreCalc/Trig or C) try to complete both simultaneously
Option A) If they chose the AP Stats class senior year, to try to get some college credit while in high school, then they would really be two years behind in stem math progression on entry to college, and would have also had a entire school year between Algebra 2 (light) and PreCalc/CollegeAlg/Trig - (definitely not an ideal situation...)
BTW – This option is what a College Board Senior Vice President recommended to school superintendents! “If you’re worried about AP Calculus and fidelity to the Common Core, we recommend AP Statistics and AP Computer Science”
Option B) They could take precalc/trig during senior year, but as some of you know, the ACT determines scholarship money for many, many students. Efforts on that test and applications for colleges and scholarship start late junior year and finish early senior year for most students. (Ask one!)
Option C) is not viable in my opinion. The slow pace of Common Core math from 7th though 11th grades leaves students woefully underprepared for trigonometry in particular and will create an unnecessarily steep learning curve if they choose this “option” during senior year.
Wednesday, September 11, 2013
Professor Milgram's Letter to Diane Ravitch
This is the letter from Diane Ravitch's Blog post
"James Milgram on the Common Core Math Standards"
September 11, 2013
Dear Diane,
In your own writings you mention that the biggest issue with Core Standards is the lack of evidence. This is largely true. But at least in math there is significant international evidence that major parts of the standards will not work. For example, the only area we could find that has had success with CCSS-M's method of treating geometry is in Flemish Belgium. But it was tried on a national scale in Russia a number of years back, and was rapidly dropped.
Likewise, the extremely limited high school level content is so weak that Jason Zimba, one of the three main writers described it as follows: First, he defined "college readiness" by stating: "We have agreement to the extent that it's a fuzzy definition, that the minimally college-ready student is a student who passed Algebra II." Perhaps this explains why the only math at the high school level, aside from a snippet on trigonometry, is material from Algebra I, Algebra II, and Geometry. Moreover, the Algebra II component does not describe a complete course. Zimba's definition is taken verbatim from his March 23, 2010 testimony before the MA State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education. Later, in the question period, Sandy Stotsky asked for some clarification.
The following is a verbatim transcript:
Zimba stated "In my original remarks, I didn't make that point strongly enough or signal the agreement that we have on this - the definition of college readiness. I think it's a fair critique that it's a minimal definition of college readiness." Stotsky asked "For some colleges?" and Zimba responded by stating: "Well, for the colleges most kids go to, but not for the colleges most parents aspire to." Stotsky then asked "Not for STEM, not for international competitiveness?" and Zimba responded "Not only not for STEM, it’s also not for selective colleges. For example, for UC Berkeley,whether you are going to be an engineer or not, you'd better have precalculus to get into UC Berkeley."
Stotsky then pointed out: "Right, but we have to think of the engineering colleges and the scientific pathway." Zimba added "That's true, I think the third pathway goes a lot towards that. But your issue is broader than that." Stotsky agreed saying "I'm not just thinking about selective colleges. There's a much broader question here," to which Zimba added "That's right. It's both, I think, in the sense of being clear about what this college readiness does and doesn't get you, and that's the big subject."
Stotsky then summarized her objections to this minimalist definition by explaining that a set of standards labeled as making students college-ready when the readiness level applies only to a certain type of college and to a low level of mathematical expertise wouldn’t command much international respect in areas like technology, economics, and business. Zimba appeared to agree as he then said "OK. Thank you."
So these are the standards that Sybilla Beckmann recently described by stating that "No standards I know of are better than the CCSS-M." Well, if you believe that then perhaps I can interest you in large bridge in NYC. As to the "third pathway" that Zimba mentioned above, it never actually existed. The version of CCSS-M Zimba was talking about was the March 10 public draft. It had placemarkers for the key calculus standards, but aside from those placemarkers, this version contained about the same material -- only in Geometry, Algebra I, Algebra II and a trig snippet -- as appears in the final version.
Moreover, the calculus placemarkers and any hint of a third pathway are gone in the final version. It is also worth noting that Clifford Adelman did an analysis of the odds of completing a college degree based on the highest level math course completed in high school. The odds for Geometry were 16.7%, for Algebra II they were 39.3%, but for Trigonometry they were 60%, 74.6% for Precalculus, and 83.3% for Calculus. So we can estimate that a "minimally college ready student" has a less than 40% chance of completing a college degree. Is this really what the National Governor's Association, the Council of Chief State School Officers, and the Gates and Broad Foundations want for our youth?
Yours,
Jim Milgram
"James Milgram on the Common Core Math Standards"
September 11, 2013
Dear Diane,
In your own writings you mention that the biggest issue with Core Standards is the lack of evidence. This is largely true. But at least in math there is significant international evidence that major parts of the standards will not work. For example, the only area we could find that has had success with CCSS-M's method of treating geometry is in Flemish Belgium. But it was tried on a national scale in Russia a number of years back, and was rapidly dropped.
Likewise, the extremely limited high school level content is so weak that Jason Zimba, one of the three main writers described it as follows: First, he defined "college readiness" by stating: "We have agreement to the extent that it's a fuzzy definition, that the minimally college-ready student is a student who passed Algebra II." Perhaps this explains why the only math at the high school level, aside from a snippet on trigonometry, is material from Algebra I, Algebra II, and Geometry. Moreover, the Algebra II component does not describe a complete course. Zimba's definition is taken verbatim from his March 23, 2010 testimony before the MA State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education. Later, in the question period, Sandy Stotsky asked for some clarification.
The following is a verbatim transcript:
Zimba stated "In my original remarks, I didn't make that point strongly enough or signal the agreement that we have on this - the definition of college readiness. I think it's a fair critique that it's a minimal definition of college readiness." Stotsky asked "For some colleges?" and Zimba responded by stating: "Well, for the colleges most kids go to, but not for the colleges most parents aspire to." Stotsky then asked "Not for STEM, not for international competitiveness?" and Zimba responded "Not only not for STEM, it’s also not for selective colleges. For example, for UC Berkeley,whether you are going to be an engineer or not, you'd better have precalculus to get into UC Berkeley."
Stotsky then pointed out: "Right, but we have to think of the engineering colleges and the scientific pathway." Zimba added "That's true, I think the third pathway goes a lot towards that. But your issue is broader than that." Stotsky agreed saying "I'm not just thinking about selective colleges. There's a much broader question here," to which Zimba added "That's right. It's both, I think, in the sense of being clear about what this college readiness does and doesn't get you, and that's the big subject."
Stotsky then summarized her objections to this minimalist definition by explaining that a set of standards labeled as making students college-ready when the readiness level applies only to a certain type of college and to a low level of mathematical expertise wouldn’t command much international respect in areas like technology, economics, and business. Zimba appeared to agree as he then said "OK. Thank you."
So these are the standards that Sybilla Beckmann recently described by stating that "No standards I know of are better than the CCSS-M." Well, if you believe that then perhaps I can interest you in large bridge in NYC. As to the "third pathway" that Zimba mentioned above, it never actually existed. The version of CCSS-M Zimba was talking about was the March 10 public draft. It had placemarkers for the key calculus standards, but aside from those placemarkers, this version contained about the same material -- only in Geometry, Algebra I, Algebra II and a trig snippet -- as appears in the final version.
Moreover, the calculus placemarkers and any hint of a third pathway are gone in the final version. It is also worth noting that Clifford Adelman did an analysis of the odds of completing a college degree based on the highest level math course completed in high school. The odds for Geometry were 16.7%, for Algebra II they were 39.3%, but for Trigonometry they were 60%, 74.6% for Precalculus, and 83.3% for Calculus. So we can estimate that a "minimally college ready student" has a less than 40% chance of completing a college degree. Is this really what the National Governor's Association, the Council of Chief State School Officers, and the Gates and Broad Foundations want for our youth?
Yours,
Jim Milgram
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)