Issaquah taken to task for choice of math textbook series

Comment from Laurie Rogers:
A curriculum adoption committee in Issaquah School District, WA, was slated to recommend to its school board that Issaquah adopt the Discovering series of math textbooks for grades 9-12. Dr. Steve Rasmussen, Issaquah superintendent, has said he supports that recommendation, and he wrote a letter to the Issaquah community to explain. You can read his letter here: http://www.issaquah.wednet.edu/documents/math/HSmath/communitymath.pdf

Meanwhile, Dr. John Sweller, School of Education, University of New South Wales, Sidney, Australia, read through Dr. Rasmussen's letter to the community and had a succinct response, which he has given permission to quote: "That is a long letter to defend the indefensible."

Below is a letter to Dr. Rasmussen from Dr. Paul A. Kirschner, Director of the Learning and Cognition Program at the Open Universiteit Nederland. Dr. Kirschner and Dr. Sweller are two of the authors of a 2006 article published in Educational Psychologist: "Why Minimal Guidance During Instruction Does Not Work: An Analysis of the Failure of Constructivist, Discovery, Problem-Based, Experiential, and Inquiry-Based Teaching." http://www.cogtech.usc.edu/publications/kirschner_Sweller_Clark.pdf

Dr. Kirschner gave me permission to reprint his letter to Dr. Rasmussen.

(Update: On March 24, 2010, despite this input from math professionals, and despite concerted effort from community advocates, the Issaquah school board voted to adopt the reform Discovering math series.)

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

Centre for Learning Sciences and Technologies
Valkenburgerweg 177 6419 AT Heerlen
PO Box 2960 6401 DL Heerlen, The Netherlands

Dr. Steve Rasmussen
Superintendent, Issaquah School District
565 NW Holly Street
Issaquah Washington 98027-2899

23 February 2010
Re: Save Math In Issaquah

Dear Dr. Rasmussen,
My colleague, Professor Richard Clark alerted me and my colleague Professor John Sweller to Mark Vanhorne’s open letter to the Issaquah School District about the district’s choice of a mathematics method “Discovering Math”. I read his open letter with a combined feeling of increasing astonishment and anger. Let me begin by saying that I myself am not acquainted with the method that the district has chosen, though I have taken the time to peruse the website of the publisher and read what the publisher says about the method. In my opinion, which is based upon years of research on learning materials, learning material development, and learning & cognition the choice that your school district is about to make will impact your students in a very negative way.

The method is an inquiry-based learning method. There are two main assumptions which underlie such instructional programs using minimal guidance. First, is that they challenge students to solve ‘authentic’ problems or acquire complex knowledge in information-rich settings based on the assumption that having learners construct their own solutions leads to the most effective learning experience. Second, they appear to assume that knowledge can best be acquired through experience based on the procedures of the discipline (i.e., seeing the pedagogic content of the learning experience as identical to the methods and processes or epistemology of the discipline being studied; Kirschner, 1992). Minimal guidance is offered in the form of process- or task-relevant information that is available if learners choose to use it. Advocates of this approach imply that instructional guidance that provides or embeds learning strategies in instruction interferes with the natural processes by which learners draw on their unique, prior experience and learning styles to construct new, situated knowledge that will achieve their goals. There are a number of problems with these assumptions which I will go into very briefly. If you would like to read more on this, I am attaching an article that I wrote with the two aforementioned colleagues – and which I use in this letter - which was published in one of the top journals in the field along with an article from my colleague Professor Richard Mayer, the top ranked psychologist in the world.

First, such discovery or inquiry-based methods ignore the structures that constitute human cognitive architecture and are thus not likely to be effective. Minimally guided instruction proceeds with no reference to the characteristics of working memory, long-term memory or the intricate relations between them. As John Sweller wrote in 1982:
"Inquiry-based instruction requires the learner to search a problem space for problem-relevant information. All problem-based searching makes heavy demands on working-memory. Furthermore, that working memory load does not contribute to the accumulation of knowledge in long-term memory because while working memory is being used to search for problem solutions, it is not available and cannot be used to learn…The goal of instruction is rarely simply to search for or discover information. The goal is to give learners specific guidance about how to cognitively manipulate information in ways that are consistent with a learning goal, and store the result in long-term memory.”

The result is a series of procedures and recommendations that most educators find almost impossible to implement because they require learners to engage in cognitive activities that are highly unlikely to result in effective learning. Further, these methods imply that the teachers have the domain knowledge and pedagogical content skills to carry out the instruction and can give the support and guidance that the method does not possess. Unfortunately, there is documented evidence (from your own Department of Education, that this is not the case as can be seen in the statement by Patricia O’Connell Ross,
(http://www.comsci.nist.gov/weekly_seminars.html), team leader for the Mathematics and Science Partnership Program, U.S. Department of Education:

"While primary education in math and sciences is highly variable, depending on each teacher’s comfort zone, by middle school it gets worse, with less than 50 percent of math and science teachers holding a major or minor degree in those subject areas. In some districts, up to 25 percent of high school math and science teachers do not have major or minor degrees in these subjects; however, this varies widely" (n.p.).

Second, inquiry-based learning is based upon the assumption that the epistemology of the domain (scientific inquiry) is also the best pedagogy for those who have to learn the domain. Scientists “do” science and math, are experts in their domains and are cognitively developed enough to abstract meaning from phenomena (both with respect to their expertise and age). Learners “learn” science and math, are novices in the domain and have neither the cognitive development nor maturation (see Piaget with respect to cognitive development and abstract thinking) to abstract the necessary meaning. In other words, children are not “little adults” (see Luria for example) and novices are not just less knowledgeable experts (see De Groot for example).

"The incorrect belief that children and adults differ only in quantitative terms has become firmly entrenched in the general consciousness. Its proponents argue that if you take an adult, make him smaller, somewhat weaker and less intelligent, and take away his knowledge and skills, you will be left with a child. This notion of the child as a small adult is very widespread…essentially the child is…in many respects radically different from the adult, and [that he] is a very special creature with his own
identity… qualitatively different from the adult" (Vygotsky & Luria, 1930 (translation 1992), Chapter 2, np).

In other words, the differences between experts and novices manifest themselves not only at the conceptual level, but also at the level of epistemology and ontology. Hurd wrote in 1969 that this makes the mistake of ignoring the difference between the methods and behaviours of an expert in a domain and a student that has to learn that domain. A novice sees, experiences, and learns differently than an expert. Thus, while it might be important to teach students about the scientific method, this does not justify the use of the scientific method as an instructional method.

I hope you will reconsider your decision. Remember, the mathematical literacy of thousands of students for an entire generation hangs in the balance.

With kind regards,
Prof. dr. Paul A. Kirschner
Director of the Learning and Cognition Program

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

RTTT, SB6696 dangerous; administrators, lawmakers support them

Have you heard about the “Race to the Top” initiative? President Barack Obama and Sec. of Education Arne Duncan want the states to sign on to RTTT, which allows states to compete for one-time “grants” if they agree to make certain permanent changes to public education. It goes a bit like this: “Do it our way, and you can scrabble for these sweet taxpayer dollars. Don’t do it our way, and you can’t even try for the bribe … I mean grant. You also might find yourself with a few other … problems.”

To qualify for a RTTT payoff … I mean grant … states have to adopt “national education standards” (among other things). The standards ostensibly are being written – not by the federal government (which isn’t supposed to write education standards), but by the CCSSO, the NGA, Achieve, Inc. and other shadowy organizations. Don’t be lulled by this supposed Wall of Separation. The fed’s fingerprints are all over the standards – through money, policy and heavy political pressure. There’s more. The standards will soon be followed by national assessments and probably national curricula.

Last year, 48 states signed a “Memorandum of Agreement” saying they would participate in the standards movement. Washington State signed on quietly, with nary a peep to the public. Concerns were assuaged with variations on this: “Signing the MOA doesn’t mean we’re signing on to the standards. We’re just agreeing to look at them.”

Six months later, Washington State is poised to adopt the unfinished standards – sight unseen – with Senate Bill 6696. There are many things wrong with SB6696. One is that, following a review of feedback on the national standards, SB6696 says, this state “shall adopt” them. Not “might adopt.” Shall.
On Feb. 10, a Spokane school board member praised SB6696, saying it’s a “bill to watch.” No one on the board asked questions about it. No one expressed concerns.

The intent of this bill is to adopt unfinished, nationally directed education standards, sight unseen. The states are giving away constitutionally protected autonomy for a few coins they might not get. Why would anyone support this bill? Especially considering that a leaked draft in January indicated that the national math standards are much weaker than Washington’s current standards. In fact, they look like what we had before, with embedded constructivism and insufficient emphasis on standard algorithms. We got rid of those standards after a multi-year battle and more than 1.6 million taxpayer dollars. Yet, here they are, back again.

Despite all of this, SB6696 easily passed through the Senate on Feb. 11, with just 5 nay votes. Co-sponsor Sen. Chris Marr (D) told me on Feb. 12 that he doesn’t know much about it, but he’s motivated by the RTTT money and he has “faith” in the process.
He shouldn’t. Besides carrying out this process in almost complete secrecy, Obama and Duncan are going way beyond their mandate. It’s all there in 20 USC 3403:
“The establishment of the Department of Education shall not increase the authority of the Federal Government over education or diminish the responsibility for education which is reserved to the States and the local school systems and other instrumentalities of the States. … 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.”

But that's so 1980s. Today, things are different. The Department of Education’s "High Priority Performance Goals" as of February 2010 include a "cradle to career" federal "education strategy"; mandated "intensive" reform for struggling schools; ensuring "comprehensive teacher evaluation systems" that are connected to student achievement data; and fostering - some would say demanding -"state collaboration."

In July 2009, I began asking the federal government, the CCSSO, the NGA, Achieve, the Washington State governor's office and OSPI about the national standards. The Department of Education tried several times to pass me off to the CCSSO. (I finally filed a formal request for public information, and since then, nothing. I threatened to make a federal case of it. Still nothing.) From the CCSSO - nothing. From the NGA - nothing. From Achieve – a phone call referring me to the CCSSO.

From Gov. Chris Gregoire’s office, I received heavily redacted documents and a referral to Executive Policy Advisor Judy Hartmann. After a few months and several phone calls from me, Ms. Hartmann finally agreed to talk. She told me on the record that before the state signed on to the national standards, the standards would have to pass muster with the SBE, the superintendent and the legislators.

From OSPI, also after a formal request for public information, Deputy Superintendent Alan Burke told me (his answers in blue):

1. Is this effort supported politically, practically or financially by the U.S. Department of Education (DoE) and/or the White House?
This question should be directed to the US Department of Education or the Obama Administration for an appropriate response.
(Yeah, I already told you how that went.)

2. How has the public been notified of Washington's participation?
Education leaders in Washington State have been notified about the CCSSO/NGA initiative for common core standards in regional and statewide meetings. The general public has been notified through press reports about the initiative.
(Not from OSPI or Gov. Gregoire’s office, however.)

3. The NGA/CCSSO talks about an "ongoing development process that can support continuous improvement of this first version." Will there therefore be an annual cost to taxpayers?
   It is unknown to the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) if there will be annual costs to taxpayers related to the development of the common core standards.
4. Does OSPI support the section in the MOA called "Federal Role"?
   Once the common core standards are analyzed by OSPI with respect to their alignment to current standards for our state and a decision is made about Washington’s participation in this effort, a decision will be made with respect to accepting federal assistance.
5. Washington just revised its standards at a cost upward of $1.6 million. Why is this state participating in this new movement? What will be the cost to Washington taxpayers? If the cost is nothing, what kind of participation is it?
Washington has not decided to participate in implementation of the standards conceived of by this movement. OSPI has agreed to study the documents produced by CCSSO and NGA as the process evolves. Additionally, any costs to taxpayers is unknown.

6. Under what specific authority did Superintendent Dorn sign Washington on to this movement without public notification, input or consent?
Washington has not made a commitment to implement national standards; we have agreed to study the documents produced.

7. Who advised Superintendent Dorn on this effort? When did Washington State receive notice of this movement? How long was Washington given to decide whether to sign the MOA?
   CCSSO is the organization advising OSPI about this movement, and OSPI first received notice on April 17, 2009. States were given approximately 3 weeks to sign the MOA.
8. Under what conditions will Washington refuse federal incentives to implement these new national standards? Who decides?
   The decision process and conditions which would result in refusal of federal incentives to implement the proposed national standards is unknown at this time.
9. States had to agree that the CCS would represent "at least 85%" of the state's language arts and math standards. What happens if they only like 40%?
   Adoption of the common core state standards is voluntary for states; if a percentage sharply greater than 15 percent of the proposed national standards are not acceptable, OSPI will not implement the standards in Washington State.
10. Will current federal funding be grandfathered for states that reject the CCS?
    Federal fiscal impacts of not implementing common core standards are unknown at this time.
11. Once most of the states adopt these national standards, how will parents assess the standards to see if they're rigorous enough?
    The process for parental review of the proposed common core standards is unknown at this time.
12. In this process, there appears to have been no public notice, no public comment, no public vote. When will voters have a say?
    The process and timeline for public comment on the proposed common core standards is unknown at this time.
13. The MOA talks about a National Policy Forum comprised of "signatory national organizations" that will share ideas and build "public will and support." Who are these organizations?
    Please contact CCSSO or NGA for an appropriate response regarding this information.
14. How will additions and deletions to this forum be made and announced? Unknown
15. How will the public be involved in this forum? Unknown

“As this national movement progresses,” Alan Burke summed up, “I expect that public communications will become appropriate should Washington decide to take any formal action.”

Yeah, not so much.

In September 2009, State Superintendent Randy Dorn finally commented publicly on the national standards: “Adoption of the standards will be a state-level decision. … The common standards created by the NGO and CCSSO will be examined thoroughly and transparently. Any changes to the state’s standards would not occur for at least two years, and then only after an ample opportunity for public review and comment.”

By January 2010, everything had changed. Judy Hartmann's promised process is missing, Alan Burke's answers don't apply, and in a Jan. 25 press release, Randy Dorn supported SB6696, ignored its dangers and deadlines, and even said it doesn't go far enough.

It's important to face reality. Decision-makers meant to force national standards (and national control) on states from the get-go, using whatever subterfuge was necessary, at whatever cost was necessary, whether the American people liked it or not, and whether we protested or not. Everything math advocates have achieved over the last several years is on the line. Our ability to advocate effectively is on the line. And that's before we talk about the constitutionality of these bribes … extortions … golly, I mean grants. (I don’t know why I can’t remember that word.)

Please help me fight this. Write to your senators and representatives, and tell them to vote against this bill. It’s a dangerous thing, and it won’t help your children learn. Don’t wait to speak up. This bill is moving fast.

(Read through the bill by Googling “SB6696 2010” for the latest version. I’m betting there are other things about it you won’t like.)

Please note: The information in this post is copyrighted. The proper citation is:Rogers, L. (February, 2010). "RTTT, SB6696 dangerous steps; administrators all for them." Retrieved (date) from the Betrayed Web site: http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailing.blogspot.com/

A version of this article was published Feb. 15, 2010, on Education News at http://www.educationnews.org/commentaries/52470.html.

Decision favors plaintiffs in court challenge of Seattle math text adoption

Statement from Laurie Rogers:

Last year, Seattle Public Schools adopted the Discovering math series despite valiant opposition from parents and math professionals, despite poor assessments of the Discovering series' rigor and quality of presentation, and despite the fact that OSPI did NOT ultimately recommend the Discovering math series.
In response, three people filed a lawsuit, saying that Seattle didn't have sufficient supporting evidence for its adoption, and also that the Discovering series was associated with an INCREASE in achievement gaps.

Recently, a judge agreed with the plaintiffs and - while stopping short of telling Seattle administrators to cease and desist in their adoption - told them to revisit it. The district can continue to use the Discovering series, and Seattle administrators have stated their clear intention to do so.
Nevertheless, the court decision is momentous. It sets a precedent for districts across the country. When board members can't justify their adoption decisions, the people now have legal recourse.

What sheer arrogance and hubris Seattle administrators must have to persist in pursuing reform/discovery math instruction -- despite the statistics, despite the resistance, despite the remediation rates, dropout rates, achievement gaps, lack of skills, opposition from math professionals, concerns from parents, and low pass rates on standardized tests. Even with a court decision that basically says the school board's adoption of the Discovering series was rooted in ignorance ... Seattle administrators STILL persist.

Please express appreciation to Martha McLaren and her fellow plaintiffs for their courage and dedication. If you would like to assist Martha in her substantial court costs, please let me know and I can pass on your message.
Meanwhile, a toast to you, Martha. Other advocates will follow in your footsteps.

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

Press release from Martha McLaren, plaintiff. Reprinted here with permission:


Decision Favors Plaintiffs in Court Challenge of Seattle High School Math Text Adoption

Seattle, Washington – February 4, 2010 – Judge Julie Spector today announced her finding of “arbitrary and capricious” in the Seattle School Board's May 6 vote to adopt the Discovering Math series of high school texts despite insufficient evidence of the series' effectiveness.

Judge Spector's decision states, “The court finds, based upon a review of the entire administrative record, that there is insufficient evidence for any reasonable Board member to approve the selection of the Discovering series.”

Plaintiffs DaZanne Porter, an African American and mother of a 9th-grade student in Seattle Public Schools, Martha McLaren, retired Seattle math teacher and grandparent of a Seattle Public Schools fifth grader, and Cliff Mass, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Washington, had filed their appeal of the Board's controversial decision on June 5th, 2009. The hearing was held on Tuesday, January 26th, 2010.

Declared plaintiff Martha McLaren, “This is a sweet victory for the parents and students of Seattle Public Schools. It announces to Seattle that in this instance, the School District's practice of ignoring evidence, in favor of preconceived decisions, is arbitrary and capricious, and contrary to law. The judge's finding may, hopefully, be a step towards improving high school math education through replacing confusing textbooks with coherent ones. However, students at all levels, not just in high school, badly need clear, understandable materials. In addition, it is essential that teachers, especially elementary teachers, understand fundamental math much more deeply than is now the norm. There is much work to be done to bring improvement; this decision is an encouraging development.

We are hopeful that the District will move forward responsibly, putting the students first, and will decline to appeal Judge Spector's decision. If the Board revisits its vote, as ordered by the court, and this time refuses to adopt Discovering, it seems possible that the textbook rated 2nd by the adoption committee, a series by Prentice Hall publishers which is well-regarded by critics of reform texts, might instead be recommended by Superintendent Goodloe-Johnson. The Seattle Public Schools could then begin undoing the long-term decline in math education that has been extended by this disastrous mistake.”

According to the plaintiffs' initial brief, Seattle Public Schools began eliminating "traditional" math texts in the 1990s, moving toward an approach called "reform," "discovery learning," or "constructivism," among other names. Reform texts rely heavily on written language, presenting complicated, “real-life” problems. Memorization and skills practice is de-emphasized, and calculator work is encouraged from kindergarten on. Students generally work in small groups to devise their own approaches and solutions. With traditional "explicit" texts, however, students are given the opportunity to master key topics through examples, practice and extensive teacher feedback.

The initial brief had stated that the district committee chosen to review mathematics textbooks was biased toward reform, and that the textbook criteria were similarly biased, so that the resulting recommendation would be a reform textbook. The plaintiffs also asserted that the board voted to adopt the Discovering textbook series in contradiction of information presented from community members prior to the vote.

Citizens testifying to the board prior to the May 6 vote emphasized that the Discovering textbook series had been rated “unsound” in a review conducted by the Washington State Board of Education, and that the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction had passed over the Discovering program, instead recommending Holt Mathematics, a balanced textbook series featuring increased explicit instruction.

In Seattle, the movement toward reform texts has culminated in the adoption of the Everyday Math K-5 texts in 2007, Connected Mathematics Project (CMP2) texts for grades 6 – 8 in 2006, and the Discovering texts for high school in 2009 .

Attorney Keith Scully of Gendler and Mann, LLP, represented the plaintiffs in the lawsuit. Even before the decision was announced, the plaintiffs voiced their unanimous admiration for his presentation of the appeal; his handling of the case was clearly crucial to the success of the project.

##

Delphi Technique: The art of pretending to achieve consensus

By Laurie H. Rogers


"To me consensus seems to be the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values and policies in search of something in which no one believes, but to which no one objects—the process of avoiding the very issues that have to be solved, merely because you cannot get agreement on the way ahead. What great cause would have been fought and won under the banner 'I stand for consensus'?"
-- British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, 1981


I had heard of the “Delphi Technique” being used to bring a committee to “consensus,” but before my experience on Spokane Public Schools’ most recent high school math curriculum adoption committee, I hadn’t seen it in action. Fortunately for Spokane students, most members on the adoption committee resisted the siren call of the Delphi Technique and ultimately chose the two stronger curricula as their finalists for a high school math curriculum.
Here is an example of how any committee can achieve “consensus” without actually achieving it.

1. First, the committee is split into small groups. Each group contains different “types” of committee members. Thus, like-minded individuals are separated from each other and spread around the room, and their influence is lessened and more easily “managed.”
2. “Rules” for behavior are set up so that real debate is disallowed.
3. Each group contains a few people loyal to the institution’s agenda. One is willing to grab for the pen and paper and be the official recorder; another can monitor group behavior for adherence to the “rules.”
4. Oppositional or problematic comments are eliminated. Recorders politely but persistently “interpret,” reject, ignore, rewrite or “reframe” unwanted comments.
5. Requests for debate or discussion are ignored or rejected. Monitors politely but persistently delay debate and redirect conversations to safer areas.
6. Each recorder produces a “summary” or “synopsis” of comments. The summaries virtually eliminate most problematic comments. Remaining challenges are dismissed as being the minority view. Even clear oppositional statements can be questioned – “What does that mean, anyway?” – thus casting doubt upon them and lessening their influence.
7. From these summaries or synopses, the institution creates a “perception” or a “perspective,” supposedly drawn directly from what committee members said.
8. Persistent questioners are ignored or admonished for a) operating outside of the “rules,” b) refusing to accept the “consensus” of the group, or c) being unreasonable pains in the neck.

Most people find it difficult to combat all of this. It’s uncomfortable being the odd one out. It’s exhausting to fight for every inch of ground, every word, every phrase, every idea … and then look up to find that what was said isn’t there. It’s hard to go back and do it again the next day.
(And if one’s job depends on getting along with the people who run that committee, it can be a devastating choice one makes to continually try to get a solid word in edgewise. I think most employees won’t dare fight that battle.)

And so, most people give up and get quiet – or they suddenly find they have time conflicts and must drop out. Those who remain on the committee tend to be supporters of the institutional agenda, or they’re willing to go along to get along, or they become convinced they’re being heard. Dissent evaporates, and things quiet down. The few who continue to present an opposing view are easily managed and dismissed.

Voila! “Consensus.”

The first time the members of Spokane Public Schools’ high school math curriculum adoption committee met was Sept. 29, but it wasn’t until Dec. 9 – more than 10 weeks later – that we finally were allowed to examine eight possible curricula. What were we doing on all of the other days?

We could have spent those five days discussing the new state math standards; the various curricula assessments that had been done by OSPI and the State Board of Education; the National Mathematics Advisory Panel Final Report; any math curricula that had already arrived at the district; the suitcase of data and research that I brought for the committee; or our perspectives on how K-12 math should be taught. But the standards, curricula assessments and NMAP report weren’t discussed in depth; we didn’t see any math curricula until Dec. 3; the data and research I brought weren’t discussed at all; and debates over teaching methodology were actively discouraged. Instead, we were forced to endure 23 hours of discussion on items such as the following:

1. How to speak with each other nicely.I kid you not. Committee leaders even “redirected” our discussions as if we were 6-year-olds. I half expected them to say, “Now use your words.”
2. “Consensus” – what it means, that it was the goal of the committee, and how committee members were to go about achieving it.But our views were diverse, and we weren’t allowed to debate critical issues. True consensus, therefore, was not reached. Dissenters were ignored, deliberately misunderstood, or worn down until they gave up.
3. A new definition of “dialogue.”Concerned that we weren’t allowed to debate anything, I asked that “dialogue” be added to our “norms” (our rules for behavior.) The word was added, but at the next meeting, the secondary math coordinator explained at length how “dialogue” means to not discuss the issues. In each group, he said, a person was to say something, and then tablemates were to respond, one by one, each with a thought that was brief, not an opinion, and not a challenge. We were then to move on.
4. Discussions of the district’s education “research.” The district continually gave us “research” that is poorly written; illogical; adamantly opposed to anything traditional; and uncritically supportive of reform math and extreme constructivism.
   Although they kept telling us that the field of cognitive science supports current education theory, we weren’t given anything written by actual cognitive scientists. This is probably because actual cognitive scientists say that it’s premature to base curriculum decisions on cognitive science.
   A few of us objected to some or all of this education “research,” but our objections were generally ignored, rewritten, or reframed as questions.

Early in the process, committee members were asked to discuss our perception of the current state of mathematics in Spokane, and also to state what we want things to look like. The district rewrote our feedback and then tossed out our original notes. The rewrites are different from what we said. Most comments that were supportive of a "traditional" approach were minimized or eliminated.

Despite having to suffer with this dodgy process, Spokane’s adoption committee chose Holt Mathematics and Prentice Hall Mathematics as its two finalists for a new high school mathematics curriculum. I have a preference between the two, but both align better to the new state standards; are more rigorous in content; allow for more flexibility in teaching methodology; provide students, teachers and parents with solid resources, examples, explanations, and opportunities for practice; and they align well with what students and parents said they want in a new curriculum.

I’m exceedingly proud of this adoption committee, but we are not yet out of the woods. These two choices are being piloted in the district now. Some of those piloting the curricula are opposed to their adoption. The two curricula will then go past a group of principals and a group of administrators – most of whom have not done the work the adoption committee did. I expect many, if not most of them, to vehemently oppose both curricula. In their language to the committee, district administrators have left the door open to adopting neither.

Therefore, if you have anything to say about what you would like for a high school math curriculum for your children, now is the time to speak up. If you prefer to write a letter, I recommend you write it to the school board. This might improve your chances of being heard. Please do not delay. Time, tide, and the push for fake consensus wait for no one.


Please note: The information in this post is copyrighted. The proper citation is: Rogers, L. (February, 2010). "Delphi Technique: The art of pretending to achieve consensus." Retrieved (date) from the Betrayed Web site: http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailing.blogspot.com/

Public forums offer look at math curricula

Spokane Public Schools is undergoing a high school mathematics curriculum adoption process. In December, the adoption committee chose Holt Mathematics and Prentice Hall Mathematics as the two finalists.

District administrators have scheduled two public forums to give parents an opportunity to look at these two curricula and offer their thoughts:
Jan. 21, Rogers High School, 6-7 p.m.
Jan. 26, Ferris High School, 6-7 p.m.

The two meetings are open to the public, and I hope you'll attend. Please also pass on the message to other parents. Whatever your interest in K-12 math instruction, this is your opportunity to tell the school district what you want.

Both Holt and Prentice Hall are "traditional" in their presentation of the subject matter, each offering high school material in 3 separate texts: algebra I, geometry, and algebra II. (For many years, Spokane administrators have depended on math programs that use an "integrated" approach where the subjects are mixed together.)

Although a "traditional" presentation of content does not guarantee"traditional" content, both Holt and Prentice Hall are more traditional in content. In these two curricula, proofs, theorems and algorithms are presented in a clear, concise manner, and students are not expected to discover these on their own. The texts do contain some opportunities for discovery. (For many years, Spokane administrators have forced the use of extreme “reform” texts that deemphasized or removed standard algorithms and arithmetic skills, and that emphasized excessive calculator work, excessive group work, and almost constant student "discovery" of mathematical concepts).

Despite the abject failure of reform/discovery curricula in Spokane and across the entire nation, there still is stiff resistance here to adopting anything remotely “traditional.” It’s my belief, therefore, that Holt and Prentice Hall are as close as the district will get at this time to more "traditional" content. However, it is not certain that the district will adopt either of these curricula. Spokane administrators have left the door open to adopting neither. If the district rejects both, what will be the high school math program next fall? Perhaps it will be what we have now, the truly execrable Core-Plus Mathematics Project and the current long parade of (expensive, yet ultimately unsuccessful) supplementary materials.

Spokane is at a critical juncture – this high school adoption will set the template for future adoptions in middle school and elementary school. If you seek a more traditional approach to K-12 math instruction in Spokane, your feedback is desperately needed.

College students: High school graduates, college students, and college graduates could come to the forums and reflect back on their high school mathematics classes. Did they get the math they needed for a successful college experience? Did they require remediation in mathematics during K-12 or after they graduated? Would they have preferred a different approach to math instruction? Do they think either Holt or Prentice Hall would have given them the skills they needed? These reflections would help inform the selection process.

Parents and students: Parents can come to the forums and offer their thoughts on what they want from a high school mathematics curriculum and how they prefer this material be presented and taught. Does Holt or Prentice Hall meet those needs? Parents are welcome to bring their middle school and high school students, whom no doubt have experiences and preferences they would like to share with the committee.

Business: Business owners and tradespeople can attend and discuss the skills they require from high school graduates. Does Holt or Prentice Hall offer the skills necessary for a successful job or trades application?

College professors: College and university STEM instructors can come to the forums and offer informed input on the math skills of their incoming or remedial students. Does Holt or Prentice Hall offer appropriate instruction in those critical math skills?

To all:
January 21 and January 26 are your opportunities to be heard. I plan to attend both forums. If you can't make it to either meeting, please submit your comments in writing to members of the Spokane school board. Tell them what you want. Please also pass on the message to other parents. And thank you very much for whatever you can do to help inform the selection process.

Note: I am a member of the adoption committee, however this notice was not written on behalf of the committee. If you have questions about this notice or about my experiences on the adoption committee, please contact me at wlroge@comcast.net.

School district excludes feedback from mathematicians

By Laurie H. Rogers


Last September, Spokane Public Schools created an adoption committee that was to choose a new high school mathematics curriculum. For the first time perhaps ever, parents, students and community members (including yours truly) were allowed to participate. The committee met six times in 2009. At our Dec. 9 meeting, we chose two strong finalists from eight possibilities, and we did it despite the district’s complete mishandling of the adoption process. Administrators and “facilitators” wasted our time and tax dollars on useless activities; minimized or excluded feedback from parents, teachers, students, and committee members; and continually showered us with extreme reform propaganda.

On Dec. 9, the district’s interference went to a whole new level. On that day, members of the adoption committee were barred from determining whether the eight possible curricula met the most crucial requirement on our list: “Alignment to State Standards.” Instead, we were told to use a previous assessment from the Washington State Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction. We were assured that if OSPI ranked a curriculum as being closely aligned to the state standards, the program was assumed to be “accurate, rigorous, and high quality.”

This assurance necessarily presumed that OSPI's assessment was done thoroughly, correctly and without bias. But that presumption is on shaky ground.

In 2008, under former State Superintendent Terry Bergeson, a team put together by OSPI assessed 13 high school math curricula (3 texts each), mapping each to the new state standards. There wasn't time for careful assessments of "mathematical soundness." The top four were:
1. Holt
2. Discovering Algebra/Geometry
3. Glencoe
4. Prentice Hall

Core-Plus Mathematics Project, Spokane’s current high school math curriculum, placed sixth overall. Core-Plus is a reform program, and its text is arranged in an “integrated” fashion. Of the textbooks with a “traditional arrangement of content,” (algebra/geometry/algebra), Holt placed second in algebra and first in geometry. Meanwhile, Discovering Algebra/Geometry placed first in algebra, but sixth in geometry.
(Although Discovering Algebra/Geometry contains a “traditional arrangement of content,” it isn’t a “traditional” textbook. The texts are heavily constructivist, with constant group work and student "discovery.")

OSPI also asked Drs. James King and George Bright to assess the top four curricula for mathematical soundness. Both men had potential conflicts of interest.

• Dr. Bright has a Ph.D. in mathematics education (not in mathematics) and has advocated for reform math. At the time, he worked for OSPI. He also was part of the assessment team for reform curriculum Connected Mathematics.
• Dr. King has a Ph.D. in mathematics and is an author for Key Curriculum Press (Key Curriculum Press is the publisher for Discovering/Algebra/Geometry).

Only Dr. Bright reviewed the algebra textbooks. Only Dr. King assessed the geometry textbooks, but he assessed McDougal-Littell instead of Discovering Geometry because the latter had scored too low in OSPI’s initial assessment to be considered for this additional assessment. Dr. Bright found Holt and Discovering Algebra to be the best in algebra; Dr. King found Holt and Prentice Hall to be the best in geometry.

OSPI released a preliminary recommendation to the State Board of Education (SBE). Legislation required the SBE to review the recommendation before OSPI issued a final recommendation to the school districts and to the general public. The top 3:
1. Holt
2. Discovering Algebra/Geometry
3. Core-Plus Mathematics

I’ll bet you’re wondering how Core-Plus snuck in there. I wondered the same thing. In January 2009 I asked OSPI why Core-Plus was recommended over other, better curricula. Greta Bornemann, OSPI’s math director, told me that Randy Dorn, the new superintendent, wanted to have at least one integrated curriculum in the top three.

And so OSPI initially chose to recommend Core-Plus (despite the entire series being widely panned) and Discovering Algebra/Geometry (despite the geometry portion of that series being widely panned). The SBE meanwhile had contracted with Strategic Teaching, Inc. to have the top four curricula assessed by other independent mathematicians. For this assessment, the fourth-ranked curriculum – Prentice Hall – was passed over so that sixth-place Core-Plus Mathematics could be assessed in depth.

Two mathematicians – Dr. Stephen Wilson, Johns Hopkins University, and Dr. Guershon Harel, University of California, San Diego – determined that Core-Plus and Discovering Algebra/Geometry are indeed mathematically unsound. Holt – while not thought to be fabulous – was the only one of the four found to be mathematically sound in all categories assessed. Following this process, OSPI issued its final recommendation to the public. Just one high school curriculum was recommended: Holt Mathematics.

This fall, Dr. Bridget Lewis, Spokane’s executive director of instructional programs, told parents in two community forums that the mathematicians conducting the state reviews did not agree on the results. This is a partial truth. All four of the in-depth reviewers (Drs. Wilson, Harel, Bright and King) chose Holt Mathematics in their final summary. Drs. Wilson and Harel also agreed on the unsound nature of Discovering Algebra/Geometry and Core-Plus Mathematics. Dr. Lewis and Rick Biggerstaff, Spokane’s secondary math coordinator, knew about the additional in-depth assessments, and also about OSPI’s sole recommendation of Holt, yet they still forced the curriculum adoption committee to use OSPI’s original, cursory scoring.

On Dec. 9, I asked Rick Biggerstaff why they did that. I mentioned the in-depth assessments from Drs. Wilson and Harel, plus another done by mathematician Dr. John Lee, University of Washington (who also found Discovering Algebra/Geometry to be inadequate). Rick Biggerstaff brushed off my concerns, saying the assessments from Drs. Wilson and Harel were only about “mathematical soundness,” not “alignment.” Pointing to OSPI’s original scoring, he repeatedly stated, “We’ve decided we’re going to use this.”

But why? Why would Spokane administrators insist on using OSPI’s original scoring when its results conflict with later in-depth assessments? The most notable aspect of OSPI’s original scoring is that the OSPI team ranked Discovering Algebra/Geometry – a highly constructivist (discovery) program – as second overall despite its dismal scoring in geometry. Perhaps Dr. Lewis and Rick Biggerstaff didn’t bother to become informed about the in-depth assessments. Or, perhaps their unstated agenda was to keep a constructivist program in the running despite its known inadequacy. Perhaps both. Are there other possibilities?

Despite all of this, a majority of the members of Spokane’s adoption committee stood tall on Dec. 9 and chose Holt Mathematics and Prentice Hall as the two finalists. We did it based on our familiarity with mathematics, our experience in mathematics instruction and tutoring, and the desires of the community we serve. I’m proud of the committee. Now, if we can successfully navigate Spokane’s brief pilot of Holt and Prentice Hall, the district’s final recommendation to the school board, the school board vote, and the funding of the new math curriculum, we’ll really be getting somewhere.

Please note: The information in this post is copyrighted. The proper citation is: Rogers, L. (December, 2009). "School district excludes feedback from mathematicians." Retrieved (date) from the Betrayed Web site: http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailing.blogspot.com/

School district excludes feedback from parents, teachers

Statement from Laurie Rogers on the feedback (part 2):
Spokane Public Schools’ pre-selection criteria for its new high school math curriculum are purportedly based on summaries of feedback from parents, students and teachers.
Careful diligence was required, therefore, in the collection and summarizing of this feedback. Unfortunately, the processes were so poorly conducted as to render the District’s summaries of the feedback virtually worthless.
It's a shame. Parents and teachers who offered their thoughts appear to care deeply about the issue. It’s disgraceful that so many of their thoughts were rewritten, minimized, reinterpreted, questioned, doubted and “summarized” right off the page.
(In spite of this, the adoption committee members did appear to take the community feedback into account, overwhelmingly voting for Holt Mathematics or Prentice Hall Mathematics as their top choice. These two curricula will now undergo a more in-depth assessment, including a brief classroom pilot, before a final recommendation is made to the school board.)

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

Parent Feedback Contaminated; Parent/Teacher Feedback Excluded:

In November, SPS hosted two community “forums” on the adoption of a new high school math curriculum. Those who came to the forums listened to a 50-minute District presentation, then were asked to write down on 3”x5” cards what they want from a new high school math program.
District staff made no attempt to differentiate between parents who work for the District and parents who don’t. There was no attempt to collect feedback only from parents, or only from parents of students in the district. The forums were attended by District staff, board members, university professors, District teachers, and math coaches – including people on the curriculum committee. Cards were handed out across the room. I was given cards at both forums.
Thus, the parent feedback was contaminated from the start.

The next week, I went back to the District office and looked through the cards collected at the two forums. I saw an interesting dichotomy.
Most of the cards are clear about a desire for a more traditional approach. They variously ask for “traditional” math, “basic” math, examples, direct instruction, practice, review, standard algorithms, a textbook, mathematical principles, skill proficiency (without calculators), level-appropriate material, tutoring, individual work, a dual track, alignment with state standards, a reference set of formulas, workbooks, and clarity.
On the polar opposite are a few cards asking for connections, explorations, conceptual understanding, application, and real-world context. Looking at these cards, one might think regular parents left their home at dinner time so they could drive to a district high school and use typical educator language to ask the District for more reform math.
Just one card in all of the so-called “parent” cards specifically asks for a “balance” between conceptual and procedural skills, yet this one word became the framework for the District’s summary of the “parent” feedback.

Teacher feedback also was solicited in the same casual, unscientific manner. The two most common teacher requests are “examples” and more opportunities to practice skills. Close behind are requests for context, conceptual understanding or application. Also popular are requests for close alignment with the new Washington State math standards.
A dichotomy is present in the teacher cards, too, however this dichotomy probably is legitimate. Some teachers clearly want a more traditional approach, asking for equations, algorithms, step-by-step instruction or examples for the students, basic skills, proficiency with skills such as algebra, a logical sequence to the material, and no integration of concepts.
The other group wants to stick with reform, asking for investigations and a student-centered, constructivist classroom.
The incompatibility between these philosophies was never discussed in any adoption committee meeting. Quite the contrary. All efforts to discuss it were squelched by the people running our meetings. The way these people consistently handled any disagreement over “reform” vs. “traditional” was to change the subject or substitute the word “balance,” as in “a balance between,” or a “balanced approach” – even if that wasn’t what was said.

On Dec. 3, adoption committee members were asked to go through the parent and teacher cards. We were divided into four groups and asked to “silently” lump the cards into “three to five” categories and then “come to a consensus about a phrase to describe each category.” At my table - a "parent" table - I was surrounded by administrator types, and we didn't have consensus.
“The parents want a textbook,” I said at one point to the Administrator In Charge of the Pen.
“I think it’s implied,” he said, refusing to write the word.
We argued back and forth. “Look,” I finally said, exasperated, showing him the parent cards. “’Textbook.’ ‘Textbook.’ ‘Textbook.’ Just write it down.”
In the course of this process, requests for a more “traditional” approach were excluded. I asked the Administrator In Charge of the Pen to note the disagreement on the poster paper, that some of the parent cards asked emphatically for “traditional math.” Instead, he added words that ultimately fostered the impression of parent requests for balance.

On this day, we were given the opportunity to walk around the room and add notes to other summaries if we thought something was missing. I heard some administrators question what parents or teachers meant by “basic math,” “traditional math” or “standard algorithm.” I wondered what we all had to say before our desire for Math-That-Is-Not-Reform was taken seriously.
When we returned to our tables, we (as in “Not Laurie”) could permanently add additional comments if we thought they were “needed.” At my table, all additional sticky notes were plucked back off.
“You’re removing what the parents told you,” I said to the offender. She was unmoved. “This is supposed to be through our eyes,” she said.

This is the District’s “summary” of what parents requested: “Parent support; student support; practice – a lot; resources for help; real-life or contextual problems; basic skills; balanced content – align with state standards/college readiness; balanced between skills and concepts (some procedural, some contextual, not overly emphasize technology); parent/home/on line resources (textbook); user-friendly with numerous examples, (cleaner, less cluttered appearance, consistent layout).”
The teacher "summary" is strikingly similar to the parent summary. Missing from both are words like “standard algorithm,” “direct instruction” and “traditional math,” even though some committee members added them after seeing them on the cards.
Two members even acknowledged to the ESD101 facilitators that respondents aren’t in sync on a “balanced” approach. That acknowledgment isn’t reflected in the final summaries.

The missing words also don’t show up in the pre-screen criteria. The word “balance” is there, however. Also there is “socially equitable/just for the broad scope of student experiences,” even though no parent, teacher or student feedback card asked for that. In the next article, I’ll tell you about the adoption committee’s pre-screen criteria, and how they shaped – and didn’t shape – the curricula choices that were made.


Please note: The information in this post is copyrighted. The proper citation is:Rogers, L. (December, 2009). "School district excludes feedback from parents, teachers." Retrieved (date) from the Betrayed Web site: http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailing.blogspot.com/