Friday, July 26, 2013
Why restrict opportunities for students in an effort to reconcile with Common Core's Weak HS Math Content?
Let's look at the AP 9th Annual Report to the Nation
On page 15, figure 8 shows that the number of students that took a math and science AP exam inceased from 250,465 in 2002 to 497,924 in 2012, while the number of those students earning a score of 3 or higher (on a 5 point scale) increased from 154,450 in 2002 to 268,251 in 2012.
Figure 9 shows the breakdown of the number of exams taken by subject in 2012, and the score distributions.
Many of the calculus students at the school where I teach take APStats concurrently with the precalc study during their junior year, or they opt to take APStats concurrently with APCalc senior year. My point is that it has always been an option for students to take both AP Calc and AP Stats while in high school.
I've been hoping that our district would offer APCompSci for quite a while. I've had many Calc and Alg 2 students who have indicated an interest in computer science. I really think we would have enough student interest to offer the course. Even if our district needed the comp sci teacher to travel amoung our three high schools, it will still be worth it to give our students this opportunity.
I really don't understand why the College Board would consider "supplanting" AP Calculus and make a recommendation that restricts opportunities for students in an effort to reconcile Common Core's Weak HS Math Content?
Moreover, the College Board may offer an AP Algebra course (although no plans are definite), which may supplant AP Calculus, particularly in schools rigidly adhering to the Common Core standards.
Wednesday, July 24, 2013
Yeah, so what about fidelity to #STEM Fields? Info for #parents #teachers #legislators #edreform #CommonCore
I was so shocked by the information that the College Board was giving to school superintendents, that I decided to do a little more research.
Please feel free to share my findings.
My source for the information below is from the College Board's website "Chart an AP Course to Your Future"
I only looked at CalcAB, CalcBC, Statistics, and Computer Science A because those were the courses under consideration in my previous post.
I went through their lists of careers for each of these four AP courses. An important thing to know if you're not that familiar with AP Calculus is that many colleges and universities consider AP Calc AB equivalent to their Calc I course and AP Calc BC equivalent to both Calc I and Calc II. So it's a little confusing if you see a career on the College Board's Calc BC list that is not on the Calc AB list and that is because that career would required both Calc I and Calc II.
So, with that in mind, I interpret the information they've provided to mean that:
If a student is NOT prepared for the study of calculus (at some point), they would NOT have an opportunity to pursue these fields.
Accounting
Aerospace Engineering
Agricultural Engineering
Agriculture, General
Air Transportation
Anthropology
Applied Mathematics
Applied Physics
Architecture
Architectural Engineering
Astronomy
Atmospheric Sciences and Meteorology
Biomedical Engineering
Business Administration and Management
Chemical Engineering
Chemistry
Civil Engineering
Communication Sciences and Disorders
Computer Engineering, General
Computer Graphics
Computer Networking and Telecommunications
Computer Science
Computer Software Engineering
Economics
Electrical Engineering
Engineering and Industrial Management
Engineering Technology
Entrepreneurial Studies
Environmental Engineering
Environmental Science
Environmental Studies
Exercise Science
Finance
Fishing and Fisheries
Forestry
Geology
Human Resources Management
Industrial Engineering
Information Science
Information Technology
International Business
Management Information Systems
Management Science
Marine Biology
Marketing
Materials Engineering
College Major
Mathematics
Mechanical Engineering
Molecular Biology
Natural Resouces Management and Policy
Neuroscience
Nuclear Engineering
Nursing (RN)
Nutrition Sciences
Operations Management
Physical Education Teaching and Coaching
Physics
Predentistry
Premedicine
Real Estate
Statistics
On the other hand, students who are NOT prepared to study Calculus COULD use their APStats and/or AP CompSciA credit by exam toward pursuing these fields:
(careers on the College Board's Stats or CompSci list which are not on either Calc list)
Botany
Computer Forensics
Criminal Justice
Criminology
Database Management
Design and Visual Communications
Ecology
Education
Electronics Technology
Ethnic Studies, General
Foods, Nutrition, and Wellness Studies
Geography
Insurance
Library and Information Science
Linguistics
Natural Resouces Management and Policy
Physician Assistance
Psychology
Public Administration
Public Policy Analysis
Robotics Technology
Social Work
Studio Arts
Urban Studies
Web Development
Zoology
I really hope that “Public Policy Analysis” isn’t supposed to be on this second list!
I also suspect that many professionals working in the fields on the second list actually did need calculus for their particular degree.
Please feel free to share my findings.
My source for the information below is from the College Board's website "Chart an AP Course to Your Future"
I only looked at CalcAB, CalcBC, Statistics, and Computer Science A because those were the courses under consideration in my previous post.
I went through their lists of careers for each of these four AP courses. An important thing to know if you're not that familiar with AP Calculus is that many colleges and universities consider AP Calc AB equivalent to their Calc I course and AP Calc BC equivalent to both Calc I and Calc II. So it's a little confusing if you see a career on the College Board's Calc BC list that is not on the Calc AB list and that is because that career would required both Calc I and Calc II.
So, with that in mind, I interpret the information they've provided to mean that:
If a student is NOT prepared for the study of calculus (at some point), they would NOT have an opportunity to pursue these fields.
Accounting
Aerospace Engineering
Agricultural Engineering
Agriculture, General
Air Transportation
Anthropology
Applied Mathematics
Applied Physics
Architecture
Architectural Engineering
Astronomy
Atmospheric Sciences and Meteorology
Biomedical Engineering
Business Administration and Management
Chemical Engineering
Chemistry
Civil Engineering
Communication Sciences and Disorders
Computer Engineering, General
Computer Graphics
Computer Networking and Telecommunications
Computer Science
Computer Software Engineering
Economics
Electrical Engineering
Engineering and Industrial Management
Engineering Technology
Entrepreneurial Studies
Environmental Engineering
Environmental Science
Environmental Studies
Exercise Science
Finance
Fishing and Fisheries
Forestry
Geology
Human Resources Management
Industrial Engineering
Information Science
Information Technology
International Business
Management Information Systems
Management Science
Marine Biology
Marketing
Materials Engineering
College Major
Mathematics
Mechanical Engineering
Molecular Biology
Natural Resouces Management and Policy
Neuroscience
Nuclear Engineering
Nursing (RN)
Nutrition Sciences
Operations Management
Physical Education Teaching and Coaching
Physics
Predentistry
Premedicine
Real Estate
Statistics
On the other hand, students who are NOT prepared to study Calculus COULD use their APStats and/or AP CompSciA credit by exam toward pursuing these fields:
(careers on the College Board's Stats or CompSci list which are not on either Calc list)
Botany
Computer Forensics
Criminal Justice
Criminology
Database Management
Design and Visual Communications
Ecology
Education
Electronics Technology
Ethnic Studies, General
Foods, Nutrition, and Wellness Studies
Geography
Insurance
Library and Information Science
Linguistics
Natural Resouces Management and Policy
Physician Assistance
Psychology
Public Administration
Public Policy Analysis
Robotics Technology
Social Work
Studio Arts
Urban Studies
Web Development
Zoology
I really hope that “Public Policy Analysis” isn’t supposed to be on this second list!
I also suspect that many professionals working in the fields on the second list actually did need calculus for their particular degree.
Friday, July 19, 2013
What about "fidelity" to #STEM fields? #HigherEd #APCalc #Math #EdReform
College Board: Reconciling AP Exams With Common Core
Despite these measures, there are still difficulties in reconciling many AP courses with the Common Core. In particular, AP Calculus is in conflict with the Common Core, Packer said, and it lies outside the sequence of the Common Core because of the fear that it may unnecessarily rush students into advanced math classes for which they are not prepared.
The College Board suggests a solution to the problem. of AP Calculus “If you’re worried about AP Calculus and fidelity to the Common Core, we recommend AP Statistics and AP Computer Science,” he told conference attendees.
Moreover, the College Board may offer an AP Algebra course (although no plans are definite), which may supplant AP Calculus, particularly in schools rigidly adhering to the Common Core standards.
THESE STATEMENTS ARE DISTURBING...I'm very concerned that Common Core will limit opportunities for students in mathematics.
No, I'm not "worried about AP Calculus and fidelity to the Common Core" but this statement seems to show that proponents of Common Core should definitely reconsider the claims of "rigor" - regarding 7-12 math in particular.
My mission is preparing students for their future endeavors, being responsible to their parents, my school leaders, our community and our locally elected school board, and being honest about education "reforms" that haven't proven beneficial to anyone.
Right now, Common Core seems to be in conflict with my primary mission, especially as it relates to APCalc and PreAPCalc vertical alignment... i.e. Alg2, and PreCalc.
Lisa Jones
@proudmomom
From Aug 2011 Weak Math
Sunday, May 12, 2013
#Education with #Representation #KeepEdLocal #StopCommonCore
I read an article in the paper last week about the Fort Zumwalt school board’s support for Common Core. Only one board member expressed opposition to Common Core. While addressing the board, a person in charge of curriculum for the district explained how bad it would be for district teachers who have been working to implement these standards if their board didn’t support them.
Does it seem strange to you that a purported feeling would be used as reason to continue supporting Common Core Standards?
Some educators don’t seem to understand that they are public servants. Local school board members are representatives of the people in their districts. Their positions to support or oppose something should come from their constituents. The problem with the Common Core Standards issue is that few board members and district patrons have had time to research this Initiative. Citizens are just now becoming informed and school boards must respond accordingly.
I’m writing this to urge citizens to research the Common Core Standards Initiative. Don’t play into the hegemony created by the education “experts” to silence your voice, remind local school board members that they represent you, demand that state legislature’s reign in all state entities that knowingly signed away state rights in joining the Common Core Standards Initiative.
Pioneer Institute: The Road to a National Curriculum
I’m a teacher whose respect for individual liberty far outweighs my desire to go along and get along. . .
Support MO SB210 and HB616
Does it seem strange to you that a purported feeling would be used as reason to continue supporting Common Core Standards?
Some educators don’t seem to understand that they are public servants. Local school board members are representatives of the people in their districts. Their positions to support or oppose something should come from their constituents. The problem with the Common Core Standards issue is that few board members and district patrons have had time to research this Initiative. Citizens are just now becoming informed and school boards must respond accordingly.
I’m writing this to urge citizens to research the Common Core Standards Initiative. Don’t play into the hegemony created by the education “experts” to silence your voice, remind local school board members that they represent you, demand that state legislature’s reign in all state entities that knowingly signed away state rights in joining the Common Core Standards Initiative.
Pioneer Institute: The Road to a National Curriculum
I’m a teacher whose respect for individual liberty far outweighs my desire to go along and get along. . .
Support MO SB210 and HB616
Monday, April 15, 2013
Contact YOUR US House Representative to sign onto this letter #stopcommoncore #tcot #tlot #liberty
Dear Secretary Duncan,
As you know, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) allows Congress to authorize and allocate funding for public K-12 education and, most importantly, is the primary vehicle in which we implement education policy reform. Most recently reauthorized through the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), the ESEA’s authorization expired on September 30, 2008, and has yet to be reauthorized. Since the ESEA’s expiration, the Department of Education (Department) has moved forward with education policy reform without Congressional input. Such action is, at best, in contravention with precedent.
In addition to expressing our concern with the Department’s circumvention of Congress to reform education policy, we are writing you to express our concerns with the implementation of Common Core standards and changes to federal data collection and disbursement policies.
In 2009, forty-six governors signed a memorandum of understanding with the National Governor’s Association committing their states to the development and adoption of new education standards within three years. As we understand it, states then had the option of adopting Common Core standards or creating their own equivalent standards. At the time, Common Core standards were simply an idea where states would collaborate to create uniformed education standards. Details about Common Core were not only unknown to the states, they did not exist. From there, your department offered Race To The Top
(RTTT) grants and NCLB waivers to states under the condition that each state would implement “college and career ready” standards. At the time, the only “college and career ready” standards with the Department’s approval were Common Core.
In addition to serious concerns we have regarding the Department’s aforementioned coercion of states to opt-in to Common Core standards, many of which were and continue to have serious budgetary issues and specific issues with existing education policies, we have become increasingly concerned over the development of the Common Core standards themselves. Though initially promoted as state-based education standards, Common Core standards, as they have been developed over the last few years, are nothing of the sort. In just one very troubling instance, Common Core standards will replace state-based
standardized testing with nationally-based standardized testing, the creation and initial implementation of which will be funded in full by the federal government. The long-term, annual administering of the exams, the cost of which has not been specified by the Department, is to be funded by the states.
As representatives from states across the nation, we understand the diverse cultures and state-specific education needs that exist in America. We believe that state-driven education policy is vital to the success of our children and that Members of Congress can best demonstrate the specific needs of their constituents. As with most one-size-fits-all policies, Common Core standards fail to address these needs.
As you know, because states opted-in to Common Core standards, there is little Congress can do to provide any relief from these burdensome and misguided standards. Instead, the ability to opt-out of these standards lies with the state. With that in mind, we will be working with our respective state legislatures and governors to provide relief to our education systems. In the meantime, we urge you to work with Members of Congress to reauthorize the ESEA in a manner that allows state-specific education needs to be addressed.
Separate from reauthorization, we are extremely concerned over recent changes your department has made to the manner in which the federal government collects and distributes student data.
As you know, the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) was signed into law in 1974, guaranteeing parental access to student education records and limiting their disclosure to third parties. FERPA was intended to address parents’ growing privacy concerns and grant parental access to the information schools use to make decisions that impact their children.
Once again circumventing Congress, in 2011 your agency took regulatory action to alter definitions within FERPA. With the technological advances that have occurred in recent years, changes to FERPA deserve the full scrutiny of the legislative process more so than ever before.
In addition, we understand that as a condition of applying for RTTT grant funding, states obligated themselves to implement a State Longitudinal Database System (SLDS) used to track students by obtaining personally identifiable information.
Regarding these two very concerning changes to the manner in which government collects and distributes student data, we formally request a detailed description of each change to student privacy policy that has been made under your leadership, including the need and intended purpose for such changes. We also request that you submit to us the authority under which the Department has implemented Common Core,FERPA and SLDS.
It is our sincere hope that the Department works with the Legislative Branch to implement any changes to education standards and student privacy policy. We look forward to your response and welcome the opportunity to address these issues in the future.
Sincerely,
__________________________
Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (MO-03)
As you know, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) allows Congress to authorize and allocate funding for public K-12 education and, most importantly, is the primary vehicle in which we implement education policy reform. Most recently reauthorized through the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), the ESEA’s authorization expired on September 30, 2008, and has yet to be reauthorized. Since the ESEA’s expiration, the Department of Education (Department) has moved forward with education policy reform without Congressional input. Such action is, at best, in contravention with precedent.
In addition to expressing our concern with the Department’s circumvention of Congress to reform education policy, we are writing you to express our concerns with the implementation of Common Core standards and changes to federal data collection and disbursement policies.
In 2009, forty-six governors signed a memorandum of understanding with the National Governor’s Association committing their states to the development and adoption of new education standards within three years. As we understand it, states then had the option of adopting Common Core standards or creating their own equivalent standards. At the time, Common Core standards were simply an idea where states would collaborate to create uniformed education standards. Details about Common Core were not only unknown to the states, they did not exist. From there, your department offered Race To The Top
(RTTT) grants and NCLB waivers to states under the condition that each state would implement “college and career ready” standards. At the time, the only “college and career ready” standards with the Department’s approval were Common Core.
In addition to serious concerns we have regarding the Department’s aforementioned coercion of states to opt-in to Common Core standards, many of which were and continue to have serious budgetary issues and specific issues with existing education policies, we have become increasingly concerned over the development of the Common Core standards themselves. Though initially promoted as state-based education standards, Common Core standards, as they have been developed over the last few years, are nothing of the sort. In just one very troubling instance, Common Core standards will replace state-based
standardized testing with nationally-based standardized testing, the creation and initial implementation of which will be funded in full by the federal government. The long-term, annual administering of the exams, the cost of which has not been specified by the Department, is to be funded by the states.
As representatives from states across the nation, we understand the diverse cultures and state-specific education needs that exist in America. We believe that state-driven education policy is vital to the success of our children and that Members of Congress can best demonstrate the specific needs of their constituents. As with most one-size-fits-all policies, Common Core standards fail to address these needs.
As you know, because states opted-in to Common Core standards, there is little Congress can do to provide any relief from these burdensome and misguided standards. Instead, the ability to opt-out of these standards lies with the state. With that in mind, we will be working with our respective state legislatures and governors to provide relief to our education systems. In the meantime, we urge you to work with Members of Congress to reauthorize the ESEA in a manner that allows state-specific education needs to be addressed.
Separate from reauthorization, we are extremely concerned over recent changes your department has made to the manner in which the federal government collects and distributes student data.
As you know, the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) was signed into law in 1974, guaranteeing parental access to student education records and limiting their disclosure to third parties. FERPA was intended to address parents’ growing privacy concerns and grant parental access to the information schools use to make decisions that impact their children.
Once again circumventing Congress, in 2011 your agency took regulatory action to alter definitions within FERPA. With the technological advances that have occurred in recent years, changes to FERPA deserve the full scrutiny of the legislative process more so than ever before.
In addition, we understand that as a condition of applying for RTTT grant funding, states obligated themselves to implement a State Longitudinal Database System (SLDS) used to track students by obtaining personally identifiable information.
Regarding these two very concerning changes to the manner in which government collects and distributes student data, we formally request a detailed description of each change to student privacy policy that has been made under your leadership, including the need and intended purpose for such changes. We also request that you submit to us the authority under which the Department has implemented Common Core,FERPA and SLDS.
It is our sincere hope that the Department works with the Legislative Branch to implement any changes to education standards and student privacy policy. We look forward to your response and welcome the opportunity to address these issues in the future.
Sincerely,
__________________________
Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (MO-03)
Saturday, March 30, 2013
SB210 Wording Has Changed ~ Support HB616 #stopcommoncore #MOLeg #MOSen #tctot #tcot #tlot
SB 210 (January 24, 2013)
This act prohibits the State Board of Education and the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education from implementing the Common Core State Standards for public schools developed by the Common Core Standards Initiative or any other statewide education standards without the approval of the General Assembly.
SCS/SB 210 (March 27, 2013) (SCS Voted Do Pass S Education Committee)
This act requires the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education to conduct at least one public hearing in each Missouri congressional district prior to the full implementation of the Common Core State Standards. The Department must notify school districts and parents of public school students of the hearings at least two weeks in advance.
At least two weeks prior to the first of the public hearings, the Department must perform a fiscal analysis of the projected cost to the state and school districts of the implementation of the Common Core State Standards. The Department must also prepare, at least two weeks prior to the first of the public hearings, a report identifying any data that will be collected as a result of the Common Core State Standards and any governmental or quasi-governmental entities or consortium that collects or receives any data. These reports must be published on the Department's website and must be provided to the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the Joint Committee on Education.
All public hearings must be completed by December 31, 2013. This act contains an emergency clause.
HB616 Information HERE Sign Petition to StopCommonCore implementation in Missouri!
This act prohibits the State Board of Education and the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education from implementing the Common Core State Standards for public schools developed by the Common Core Standards Initiative or any other statewide education standards without the approval of the General Assembly.
SCS/SB 210 (March 27, 2013) (SCS Voted Do Pass S Education Committee)
This act requires the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education to conduct at least one public hearing in each Missouri congressional district prior to the full implementation of the Common Core State Standards. The Department must notify school districts and parents of public school students of the hearings at least two weeks in advance.
At least two weeks prior to the first of the public hearings, the Department must perform a fiscal analysis of the projected cost to the state and school districts of the implementation of the Common Core State Standards. The Department must also prepare, at least two weeks prior to the first of the public hearings, a report identifying any data that will be collected as a result of the Common Core State Standards and any governmental or quasi-governmental entities or consortium that collects or receives any data. These reports must be published on the Department's website and must be provided to the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the Joint Committee on Education.
All public hearings must be completed by December 31, 2013. This act contains an emergency clause.
HB616 Information HERE Sign Petition to StopCommonCore implementation in Missouri!
Sunday, March 17, 2013
Observations/Questions
When I graduated from high school in the 80s, I remember commenting to the local newspaper in an interview that the curriculum was lacking and that I could have learned more. I greatly appreciate my small town upbringing now, there were many aspects other than the curriculum that were beneficial, but I knew I wasn't prepared for college. I had a very steep hill to climb.
I struggled throughout college, academically and financially; balancing family time, studies and many hours of work was tough. My math professors were demanding and encouraging...my husband was my cheerleader... they all saw me through...
I worked as a research assistant for 18 months, when I couldn't find a teaching job, it was a God-send that opened my eyes in so many ways. I took dictation for a beautifully brilliant female math professor for part of the day. We corresponded with mathematicians from all over the world. I imagined how empowering that technology could be in teaching children to realize their individual potential. We also corresponded with many influential people that were concerned about mathematics education in the U.S. We often took breaks for tea and discussed the issues at hand that day. I grew to love tea time...
In her writing, she coined a phrase that "school mathematics should be a pump, not a filter" this is a concept that has stayed close to my heart for many years. Students with "latent abilities" in mathematics must be supported in a learning environment that keeps opportunities open to them.
Let's fast forward to the present... Rather than developing and utilizing technology to support individuals in realizing their cognitive potential, we have the Common Core Standards Initiative. We are expected to passively embrace a centralized initiative that will limit the content taught in schools, undermine individual liberty of students, parents, teachers and administrators, limit the power of our locally elected school boards, and limit choice of educational materials available in the market place because of the huge rush to implement Common Core. The whole "initiative" is antithetical to true freedom.
Twenty or so years ago, when I first began teaching, I honestly expected to see the day when technology would break open great opportunities for students and teachers. I'm not talking about technology for technology's sake, I mean huge strides in cognitive development. Here are some questions that I had hoped would be answered by now...
Why do students still carry books and notebooks when we claim to spend thousands a year per pupil?
Why are school districts still investing tax dollars in copy machines and paper, teacher time in standing at the copier and grading paper and pencil assessments, rather than designing content specific learning opportunities?
Why don't we use technology to teach students how to create their own individual concept maps in a secure environment?
I have to say...these seem like issues that Bill Gates has the power and resources to address, if he really cared about individuals reaching their fullest potential. Instead he has invested heavily in creating a system of centralization, uniformity, and a captive market... yes, he's a very smart business man... but is it right?
Please don't respond to this in the comment section...I don't check them often enough...
You can reach me @proudmomom on twitter.
Thank you, Lisa
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)