Curiosity, questions and a tape recorder: That's what I had in January 2007 when I met with the superintendent and the curriculum director of Spokane Public Schools. I thought I'd write an article about why my daughter's 4th-grade class wasn't working. I brought my recorder because I'm a former journalist, and that's what journalists do.
The responses I got that day drove me to ask more questions. By October, my curiosity had become a calling, and in January, it became a book. This book wasn't what I'd planned to do; it became something I had to do.
My book is called "Betrayed." It articulates the lies, ego and blatant opportunism that have turned public education into a public disgrace. School districts across America have betrayed millions of families. Self-serving, self-important "educators" have tortured the process to death with off-the-wall theories as they grasp for billions of taxpayer dollars. Despite being filled with the nicest, most caring teachers and principals you'd ever want to meet, Spokane Public Schools is nearly a "perfect storm" of what's wrong.
Based as it is on lies, ego and greed, public education is failing, and our children pay the price with their futures.
There isn't room here to tell you everything I've discovered, so for now, I'll focus on mathematics. Mathematics is straightforward, and its mishandling is crystal clear. Indeed, it's the proverbial "canary" in the mine.
Spokane, like many districts across the country, uses three reform curricula: "Investigations in Number, Data and Space"; "Connected Mathematics"; and "Core-Plus Mathematics." "Reform mathematics" is the current education fad. It's less about mathematics and more about how educators want to teach math. Reform is heavy on problem solving, estimation, calculators, computers, group work and constructivist approaches (where children figure out things for themselves). It's typically light on basic arithmetic, practice and direct teaching.
Sadly, students whose teachers depend on reform curricula are less likely to know how to multiply vertically, do long division, manage fractions and exponents, or handle much algebra beyond the basics. They're likely to add on their fingers, become dependent on calculators and be confounded by the simplest arithmetic. They're likely to estimate and "think outside of the box," but less likely to know whether their estimations are in the right galaxy. The most capable are likely to get As in school, pass honors classes and standardized tests, yet require remediation before they begin college, learn a trade or enter the workforce.
Reform curricula are popular, but not because they work best or because scientific research supports their efficacy. (They don't, and it doesn't.) They're popular because they've been promoted around the country as being "exemplary."
Here's how that happened.
In 1989, the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics published new standards that focused on problem solving, estimation and calculators, and downplayed "rote use of symbols and operations," "rote practice" and "teaching by telling."
Several of those same authors then developed (or helped develop) curricula based on the standards.
The National Science Foundation financed several of the curricula, including "Investigations," "Connected Mathematics" and "Core-Plus," and it paid to disseminate them around the country.
(The NCTM has denied to me that it advises school districts, uses the word "reform" or is supported by government funding.)
In 1999, the U.S. Department of Education solicited commercial mathematics curricula. Proposals were to be based on NCTM Standards. Despite public protestations from 200+ professionals, the final list of 10 (which included "Connected Mathematics" and "Core-Plus") were endorsed by Secretary Richard Riley and widely promoted as being "promising" or "exemplary."
Later, the NSF called 13 NSF-supported reform curricula "exemplary," including at least five of the DoE's list of 10. It continued to promote and financially support them.
Which came first: the NCTM Standards or colleges of education that promote reform philosophy? I don't know, but they're in sync now.
As this money, ego and flawed philosophy scuttled around the country, the children's math skills fell through the floor.
Ironically, the more children struggled, the harder reform advocates pushed. If it didn't work, it wasn't because "reform" is flawed; it was because teachers needed more "professional development." Calculators and computers were pushed on schools to take the place of basic skills. Standards were revised, pass scores were lowered and assessments became easier. Critical math skills, including long division and multiplication, were deemed "unnecessary." Ninth-grade math class became a game with molding clay and pipe cleaners.
In 2007, Washington's K-12 math standards (which were guided in part by the NCTM Standards) were found to be inadequate and unclear.
No one will tell you that billions of dollars and children's futures were willfully sacrificed on ineffective philosophies.
Meanwhile, despite pitifully low WASL scores (especially in math and science), struggling schools in our district have won state awards for how well they're doing.
That's known as "spin."
In July, The Spokesman-Review commented on the state superintendent's "tendency to gloss over bad news, such as spinning the high school dropout rate." Then it glossed over that bad news by endorsing her re-election bid.
At what point does "spinning" become deceit? I say it's when the intent is to deceive. Estimates of costs for Washington's standardized tests are typically partial figures, covering just state costs and just the actual tests. Estimated dropout figures and graduation rates typically exclude groups of students whose performance would depress the numbers. Statistics that place Washington at first in this or at the top of that are typically extracted from reports that put Washington in the middle of a nation whose performance is generally abysmal.
Administrators can pluck, parse and work the statistics until they say something positive, but the actual data tell a gloomy tale. Ethnic groups and lower-income families suffer, it's true, but don't kid yourself. The gifted and talented are some of the most neglected students in the state and country.
Please note: The information in this post is copyrighted. The proper citation is: Rogers, L. (August, 2008). "Birth of 'reform' = demise of math skills." Retrieved (date) from the Betrayed Web site: http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailing.blogspot.com/
Portions of this article were published August 28, 2008, in The Inlander at http://www.inlander.com/commentary/305115792188570.php
The entire article was published September 6, 2008, in EducationNews.org at http://ednews.org/articles/28780/1/My-book-is-called-Betrayed/Page1.html
No comments:
Post a Comment