Children's Investment Fund: Vote "No"

By Laurie H. Rogers


(Updated Oct. 9, 2010, with information about certain members of the Children's Investment Fund steering committee.)

A brochure and postcard came to my door last weekend, asking me to vote “yes” to the Spokane Children’s Investment Fund, a proposed property tax. The brochure acknowledges Spokane’s “persistently troubling dropout rate,” then states: “While our public school system is doing all that it can” to close achievement gaps, “it truly is a community-wide problem” that “demands” taxpayer “attention” and “resources.”

If the Spokane Children’s Investment Fund is approved in November, taxpayers will pay $30 million over six years for programs to prevent child abuse, engage children after school, provide early-learning opportunities, and offer mentoring. These programs, the brochure assures us without any proof or data whatsoever, will reduce Spokane’s dropout rate.

This $30 million levy would be in addition to the federal, state and local taxes you already pay for education and social services. Spokane Public Schools currently spends more than $10,000 per student per year. According to the state education agency, 68% of that expenditure goes toward “learning.” It’s actually worse than that. Money for “learning” is not the same thing as money for “the classroom.”

The brochure for the Spokane Children’s Investment Fund says, again without proof, that Seattle and Portland have had “remarkable” success with their versions of a voter-approved children’s levy. What does it mean to be “remarkable”? The brochure doesn’t say.

I already know that Seattle has issues with on-time graduation, so I looked into the data.

***

Seattle:

In 1990, Seattle voters approved a “children’s” levy, called the “Families & Education Levy.” At the time, according to Seattle Public Schools, Seattle’s on-time graduation rate was 81%. In the 14 years between 1990 and 2004, Seattle taxpayers paid $138 million for the Families & Education Levy. In the seven years between 2004 and 2012 – you’ll love this – they’re slated to spend nearly $118.6 million on the levy. In 2008/2009, after 18 years of paying for the Families & Education Levy:

• Seattle’s on-time graduation rate was 70.1% (a drop from 1990 of nearly 11%). For black students, the on-time graduation rate was 55.2%.
• Just 75.3% of Seattle’s 2009 student cohort remained in school through Grade 12, giving Seattle a cohort dropout rate of 24.7%. (For black students, the cohort dropout rate was 38.1%).
  That is, indeed, remarkable.

Portland:

In Portland, Ore., the annual $12.5 million “Children’s Levy” has been in place since 2002. According to an America’s Promise report called “Cities in Crisis 2009: Closing the Graduation Gap,” in 2005, Portland’s metropolitan graduation rate was 72.8%. In 2008/2009, the Oregon Department of Education reports, Portland’s graduation rate was 70.1%.

After eight years and $100 million for the Children’s Levy, Portland’s graduation rate failed to improve. Remarkable.

Miami:

In 2002, Dade County voters approved “The Children’s Trust” levy. Six years later, voters approved the levy “in perpetuity.” It will be 2020 before they get another chance to say no to it. In 2008/2009, after hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars spent on The Children’s Trust levy, Miami’s cohort graduation rate was 68.2%. Remarkable.

***

Here's something else you should know:
The Communities in Schools program (a national program located in several cities, including Spokane) is supposedly a leading dropout prevention program. The CIS program does not provide data or research supporting its program, although it claims to be "proven" to work. An organization called ICF International is conducting a study of community-in-schools programs. This study is incomplete.

• Ben Stuckart is executive director of the Spokane chapter of CIS, and he also is on the Advisory Steering Committee for the Children's Investment Fund
• Doug Durham is on the board of directors for Spokane's CIS, and there is a Doug Durham on the Advisory Steering Committee for the Children's Investment Fund
• Lee Taylor is on the board of directors for Spokane's CIS, and there is a Lee Taylor on the Advisory Steering Committee for the Children's Investment Fund

On the Mike Fitzsimmons KXLY radio show Thursday, Oct. 8, Ben Stuckart did not mention his connection to CIS until he was asked what else he did for a living, a question which came well into the show. And when he was asked what he going to do after the vote on the Fund, he did not mention the CIS. The materials for the Fund do not mention the connection between CIS and the Fund. The public is not being properly informed about that connection.
Please vote “no” to the Spokane Children’s Investment Fund property tax initiative. Money isn’t going to fix Spokane’s dropout rate. Vote no, ask your family and friends to vote no, and ask the businesses and organizations that support this levy to withdraw their support.
You are being asked, during an economic downturn, to tax yourselves in support of a nebulous program, run by as-yet unknown mayoral appointees, who will give grants to as-yet unknown organizations, which supposedly will be able to (through as-yet undetermined extracurricular services), reduce Spokane’s dropout rate.
Spokane Public Schools has a dropout problem, no doubt about it. Its 2008/2009 on-time graduation rate was 62.1%. For black students, it was 54.6%. Just 71.3% of the 2009 cohort was still in school in Grade 12, giving Spokane a cohort dropout rate of 28.7%. (The black cohort dropout rate was 32.8%.)
Clearly, something needs to be done in Spokane, but the Spokane Children’s Investment Fund is the wrong tool for this job. According to the initiative's brochure, any grantees will have to show “proven effectiveness and successful track records in fighting the root causes of school dropouts.” But if their track records actually were proven, why is Spokane staring at a 28.7% cohort dropout rate? Why would the levy even be needed?
What exactly are those “root causes”? Could some of them have to do with Spokane Public Schools’ counterproductive academic policies?

• Spokane Public Schools has a habit of cluttering the school day with nonacademic activities, events, parties, assemblies and “character classes.”
• The school district’s absolute and unwavering commitment to constructivism (or “discovery learning”) prevents teachers from directly teaching the students critical subjects such as arithmetic and grammar. Every day, students are guided into muddling in herds, teaching themselves and each other, deferring to groupthink and attempting to reach “consensus” on things they don’t understand.
• District policy is to socially promote students to the next grade regardless of what they know. Standard operating procedure is to plunk them into advanced classes for which they’re insufficiently prepared. In response to queries about these policies, administrators have said to me: “Even if they don’t pass, students must have learned something while they’re there.”

At some point, do you suppose students give up? I can’t imagine suffering with this terrible process for 30 hours out of every week. Can you? How will the Children’s Investment Fund have a positive impact on these disastrous policies? How will that additional $30 million translate into improved graduation rates? Where is the data to support this tax initiative?
Supporters of the initiative want you to vote “yes” for the children by voting “yes” to this tax initiative. I’m asking you to vote “yes” for the children by voting “no” to this initiative. I’m asking you to push Spokane Public Schools to give up on its failing policies, to fire its ineffective administrators, and to give its corps of teachers the freedom to teach their students a strong curriculum in a focused learning environment.

Most of what Spokane administrators need to do for our students is just get out of the way.
Let’s see where we are then with our dropout rates.

Please note: The information in this post is copyrighted. The proper citation is:Rogers, L. (October 2010). "Children's Investment Fund: Vote "no"." Retrieved (date) from the Betrayed Web site: http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailing.blogspot.com/

Ethnicity, Racism and Math…

by Nick Diaz

(Originally published August 31, 2010, on TheTentacle.com: http://thetentacle.com/ShowArticle.cfm?mydocid=3936
Republished on the Betrayed blog with permission from author Nick Diaz, gssuzukiguy2004@yahoo.com,
and from John Ashbury, editor and publisher of TheTentacle.com.)


In early 2009, I was coaching the MATHCOUNTS competition team at The Barnesville School, then my place of employment. MATHCOUNTS is a nationwide system of mathematics competitions, open to middle schools students in the USA.

Students in 6th, 7th, and 8th grades, in public, private, and home schools are eligible to participate. From 1986 through 2009, I coached the math teams at Gov. Thomas Johnson Middle School in Frederick, Middletown Middle, and at Barnesville.

As the four Barnesville eighth graders were getting ready for the upcoming state competition, one of my “mathletes” mentioned that our team didn’t have much of a chance of placing high, because, after all, we didn’t have Asian students on our team. After all, Asian students from China, India, Korea, Taiwan, and Japan are inherently good at math, and better than anyone else.

The stereotyping of Asian students goes on, unabated, throughout our society. I consider this to be as racist an attitude as outright negative discrimination based on skin color and cultural differences.

The general attitude is that Asians are good at math because they’re smarter, can learn math much faster, know “stuff” more deeply, and are much quicker at arriving at answers. Finally, Asian students are good at math because, after all, they’re Asian.

Not only children, but also adults, share this bigoted view of the world; this is unfortunate, since two evils emanate from such attitude:

It allows people to believe that scholarly achievement, particularly in mathematics and science, is determined by genes and by ethnic extraction. This is not so; academic achievement is due to hard work and dedication, to focusing on the importance of learning for its own sake, and on being willing to practice, practice, practice…

It gives those of us who are not of Asian extraction the excuse not to perform at a high level in mathematics, science, engineering, or other similar pursuits. After all, Asians are automatically better, so why try?

It occurred to me then that my Barnesville team members deserved an explanation that was based on general mathematical principles. So, I get up on my high horse and began telling my young students to stop the racist talk and bigoted excuses.

If we would take a cross-section of the population of China, India, Korea, or Japan, I bet we could find dumb people, average people, and smart people, all in about the same ratio as ours in North America. Thinking that Chinese are better at math, and that Indians are better engineers – that smacks of racism, pure and simple, and denies a basic American conviction – that people are people, regardless of nationality or skin color.

So, why is it that so many Asians in North America do so well in math, science, and engineering?

Simple! Who comes here to live, either permanently or temporarily from China, Korea, India, etc? Mathematicians, engineers, scientists – at the graduate degree level or higher. These are the people who are even allowed to leave China and study and/or work in North America. The general population doesn't come here – they stay there. Those who arrive here are the physicians, the theoretical physicists, the mathematicians, the engineers, the chemists, the computer scientists, the microbiologists.

These people usually arrive in North America with families. Guess what their kids will be like! Highly intelligent, well-disciplined, focused on learning, from families where learning is considered a sacred duty, and where math and science achievement is considered to be due not to raw intelligence, but to hard work and dedication.

Where are these people concentrated? In Montgomery and Fairfax Counties, suburbs of DC, where many think tanks and research facilities abound. That explains why Takoma Park Middle School in Montgomery County has won the state MATHCOUNTS competition every year since 1986. TPMS is a math/science magnet school in a highly populated area; the staff at Takoma Park and Montgomery County schools can choose who's in and who's out. As one can expect, on any given year, their top team of four students will consist of Chinese, Indian, Korean, Japanese, or American Jewish extraction.

What that means is that we, in general, must get rid of the stereotypical thinking that allows us to justify our obvious inferiority in math and science achievement, and blow it off as "Americans are dumber than Asians because they just ARE!" It's particularly sad when adults, including parents, subscribe to the nonsense and keep spouting that racist line.

This year one of my eighth graders is a Korean exchange student, a very quiet, reserved girl. After one week of school, I can tell there’s something special about her. Despite the obvious language difficulty, she reads the questions carefully, engages her brain, and answers the questions. Reading and thinking properly, quickly, and accurately are the keys to success in mathematics, regardless of the student’s grade level. To be blunt, this Asian student runs circles around the rest of her classmates.

Why is that? Surely because she’s Asian – that’s what many people would say. Perhaps it could be also that she is more used to focusing, and therefore is able to recall the mathematical principles that all the 8th graders had learned in past years, (to be forgotten quickly and decisively), and put them all together and applied properly. Perhaps her parents insist that she do her best, rather than dismiss their children's poor achievement in math by saying silly things like, "Oh, I was never that good in math," or "My child just doesn't have a mind for math" or "Asians are better at math anyway..."



Note from Laurie Rogers: If you would like to submit a guest column on public education, please write to me at wlroge@comcast.net. Please limit columns to not more than 1,000 words. Columns might be edited for length, content or grammar. You may remain anonymous to the public, however I must know who you are. All decisions on guest columns are the sole right and responsibility of Laurie Rogers.

Pass rates on 2010 state math tests shocking

By Laurie H. Rogers

(Updated Nov. 14 to reflect adjusted scores, per the OSPI Report Card.)


Mathematics is a “gatekeeper” subject. Math guards the “gate” to college, the trades, the military, and entrepreneurship. If high school graduates don’t have sufficient math skills, they cannot pass through these gates.

Washington State’s pass rates for the spring 2010 standardized tests came out this week. I have a few of the math pass rates here, including some for Spokane Public Schools. I hope you’re sitting down.

Pass rates for Washington's 2010 math tests


<><><><>

	Washington students:	Spokane students:
4th grade	53.7%	59.1%
7th grade	55.3%	55.4%
10th grade	41.7%	38.9%

Spokane Public Schools middle school math pass rates

<><><><>

	Chase	Garry	Glover	Sacajawea	Salk	Shaw
7th:	61.0%	44.8%	44.2%	67.5%	59.2%	50.8%
8th:	49.1%	43.3%	30.6%	69.2%	61.4%	31.2%

Spokane Public Schools high school math pass rates
<><><><>

Ferris	Lewis and Clark	North Central	Rogers	Shadle
54.0%	54.2%	27.1%	21.1%	44.4%

Folks, it's bad. But don’t get up from your seat just yet. It's worse than you think. According to the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI), our students needed to earn slightly more than half of the possible points on these tests in order to pass them.

<><><><>

Grade	Points needed to pass:	Pct. needed to pass
3	21 out of 34	61.76%
4	20 out of 34	58.8%
5	20 out of 34	58.8%
6	23 out of 40	57.5%
7	22 out of 40	55%
8	22 out of 40	55%
10	unchanged from 2009	56.9%

Washington State’s 10th-grade students needed just 56.9% on their math tests in order to pass, and yet 61.3% of Spokane’s 10th graders couldn’t do it.
I’ll bet you also didn’t know:

1. OSPI looks at the completed tests first, and THEN decides where to set the cut scores. The State Board of Education approved these cut scores in August 2010, several months AFTER the students took the tests in the spring of 2010. The cut scores moved to fit -- not math standards nor academic content -- but test outcomes.
2. All of the cut scores dropped from 2009 (thereby making the tests easier to pass), with the exception of 7th grade, which rose 1 percentage point, and 10th grade, which was unchanged.
3. OSPI considers the passing scores noted above to also mean that students are “proficient” in mathematics. Therefore, a 10th grader is supposedly “proficient” in mathematics if he or she earns just 37 points out of a possible 65.

The takeaway message from these numbers is that our students are completely unprepared in mathematics. Worse, our administrators perpetuate this failing system deliberately, purposefully, willfully, stubbornly. It obviously is NOT working for the students. Despite what administrators like to claim, the math problem is NOT because of poor parenting, unmotivated students, unhelpful legislators, insufficient money, ineffective teachers, difficult social issues, insufficient "professional development," changing standards, or raging hormones. The math problem is because students are not being given enough mathematics, and that is because school administrators stubbornly REFUSE to allow the teachers to teach enough mathematics. Instead, our students are fed a steady diet of pretend mathematics, designed to suck up learning days with busy work, group work, “student-centered” activities, and student-created processes and definitions. These programs do NOT provide students with sufficient usable skills in mathematics. You can see for yourself how well the current programs work.

Parents and teachers: You are being betrayed. The children are being purposefully and persistently miseducated. They are not being given the math skills they need for college, for a trade, for business ownership, or for any postsecondary life that depends on or even uses mathematics. Most are unlikely to ever become engineers, doctors, attorneys, pilots, air traffic controllers, architects, or dozens of other types of well-paid professionals. Recent high school graduates who have not had outside intervention are likely to need remedial math classes before beginning college – perhaps several remedial math classes.

And that brings me to one more piece of bad news. In Spokane, nearly half of all SPS-educated students who take remedial math classes at our area two-year colleges fail those remedial classes or withdraw early. And what are their career options then?

Parents and teachers: Rise up. Take back the classroom from those who have stolen it. Go to board meetings, write letters, call school board members. Hold state and district administrators accountable for this education horror. Make the superintendent and the curriculum department personnel answer to you – specifically, out loud, and in public. And if they can't, if they won't ... call for their resignation or firing.

Meanwhile, please take the necessary steps to save the children. Supplement the math program, homeschool in mathematics, provide the children with tutors, or pull them out of the school system entirely. Do not let public-education administrators squander their futures. To those in Spokane: Please let me know if you plan to speak to the school board. I will do my best to be there, to support you and to cheer you on.


Please note: The information in this post is copyrighted. The proper citation is: Rogers, L. (September 2010). "Pass rates on 2010 state math tests shocking." Retrieved (date) from the Betrayed Web site: http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailing.blogspot.com/

Grammar problems caused by "hyper-constructivism"

Guest column by Robert Archer, teacher
Shadle Park High School, Spokane, WA


What is a dangling participle? How about a future perfect progressive verb? What’s the difference between intensive pronouns and reflexive pronouns? How do you parse a sentence?

OK. So maybe those were a little too complex for anyone other than English-major uber-nerds. I get that. In fact, anyone who can answer those previous questions simply wants to show off his/her outstanding grammatical knowledge for all the world to witness and, consequently, to have that world bask in his/her pedantic glory. Let’s go a little easier. How about these?

What’s a noun? How about a verb? Can you tell the difference between a complete sentence, a fragment, and a run-on? Can you make sure your subject and verb agree?

Were those better? Was the latter set of questions more apropos for anyone with a high-school education to have as s/he enters the “real world” of being both a productive and an intelligible member of our modern society? Actually, more specifically, isn’t the latter set of questions completely suitable for any American middle schooler to answer correctly before even taking a step into the halls of the modern high school? To answer: Yes. Yes! And just for emphasis, YES!!!

However, in my 14 years of experience as a high school English teacher, such is absolutely not the case. In fact, I would argue that fewer than 10% of my 10th graders could answer each one of those latter questions correctly (and I believe I’m being generous). Simply put, students these days do not know basic grammatical skills and concepts.

Honestly, it’s gotten to the point that trying to make my way through the grammatical land mines that await me anytime I assign a writing assessment becomes so painstakingly tedious that even the solid content of any given essay becomes lost in the ghastly-writing-skills shrapnel. (And don’t even get me started on the spelling skills of this generation of non-phonics-learning texters! OMG!)

Let’s face it—when high school students cannot use their own language correctly, their overall communication skills—both in written and oral form—suffer tremendously. And if their communication skills are sub-par (and, again, I believe I’m being generous), then they are simply not ready to move on to the next level, whether that level is continuing in post-secondary education or becoming a part of our educated work force. Yet, we in education continue to do just that—pass them on to the next level, washing our hands of their complete language inadequacy.

So, where exactly may I point my flaming finger of blame when 15- and 16-year-olds do not know extremely rudimentary grammar skills as they enter my high school classroom? At first glance, it would seem both easy and logical to blame my middle-school peers (since they didn’t force the knowledge into the students’ brains) or even society at large (since we have allowed written communication to be reduced to little more than texting and emailing). However, the first victim of my intended scorn is unfair, and the second is too broad.

Rather, I tend to blame those involved in curriculum development because somewhere along the line, teaching grammar has become something that we teachers can simply “imbed” into the reading and writing curriculum. I guess grammar is just too “boring” and, therefore, will not “engage” our “modern-day students” into true learning.

I'm sorry, but in my experience, the term "imbedded" is nothing more than educationalese for "not ever specifically taught." Somehow, this grammar-is-imbedded movement is supposed to help students naturally take in what proper grammar is (i.e., grammar by osmosis). It's very much a hyper-constructivist approach to education; the students are supposed to "discover" proper grammar on their own as they read good pieces. Then, somehow and some way, they are to emulate these proper mechanical structures in their own writing. And if the students don't quite "take it all in," the teacher may take 2.5 minutes here and there to show them what a damn verb is.

Allow me a moment to let curriculum developers in on an English-teacher trade secret: It ain’t working! When I’m hoping for nothing more than 3-4 grammatically correct sentences being strung together at a time as the sign of a “good” paper, then my expectations have dropped far, far too low. Yet, sadly, this is exactly to what I’ve resigned myself.

I honestly believe that the English curriculum needs to return to its roots—teaching and drilling proper grammar at younger ages—for the sake of helping our students be better communicators. I don’t believe there could be any other answer.



Note from Laurie Rogers: If you would like to submit a guest column on public education, please write to me at wlroge@comcast.net. Please limit columns to not more than 1,000 words. Columns might be edited for length, content or grammar. You may remain anonymous to the public, however I must know who you are. All decisions on guest columns are the sole right and responsibility of Laurie Rogers.

Remedial rates: Spokane's big, dirty secret

By Laurie H. Rogers


What are the college remedial rates in mathematics? How many high school graduates have to take remedial classes in college BEFORE they can take college-level math classes? Our state education agency -- OSPI -- has previously estimated a 2% remedial rate at the University of Washington. Others have estimated anywhere from 30% to 90%, depending on which colleges they're talking about.

The problem with estimating remedial rates is that one must be specific about which students, which classes, which colleges, and which years. The numbers change, from year to year, they are higher for community colleges, and they are higher for public school students than for privately taught students.

As with any statistic, the numbers can be worked to say whatever we want them to say.

Public? Or private?: The remedial rates tend - almost without fail - to be higher for public school students than for privately educated or homeschooled students.

Mathematics? Or reading and writing?: Public schools teach reading and writing slightly better than they teach math. (This is not a "success," however. Schools still fail to teach sufficient grammar, spelling, and writing skills. Just ask any college English teacher, or any business owner who is looking for graduates who can write.)

Recent graduates (just got out of high school)? Or all graduates?: Remedial rates tend to be higher for people who have been out of high school for a few years. This seems obvious, however students don't have to be out for long to forget the little they were taught. That's because many weren't taught very well to begin with. (This is not - despite what you might have heard from district administrators - necessarily the teachers' fault. This has more to do with curriculum, methodology, and district policies.)

Community colleges? Or four -year colleges?: Remedial rates are much higher at community colleges than at four-year colleges. This is partly because many students begin their schooling at four-year colleges by picking up remedial classes at the community colleges.

College programs that cater to the technical fields? Or those that cater to the liberal arts: The remedial rates in mathematics tend to be higher at colleges that cater to the trades and technical fields.

Everyone? Or just students from specific high schools?: The numbers below are from six Spokane high schools, not from everyone who attended SCC and SFCC.

Everyone who tested? Or everyone who tested and enrolled in a remedial class?: The numbers below are for SPS graduates who tested at SCC and SFCC and then enrolled in a remedial math class.

Spokane's numbers are bad.

• It's true that the numbers below are just for SCC and SFCC. They don't include graduates who went to the four-year colleges or other colleges out of state.
• However, they also don't include students who dropped out in middle school or high school. Spokane currently has a 28.7% dropout rate, along with a serious dropout problem in middle school.
• Nor do the numbers below include students who tested into remedial math at SCC and SFCC but then declined to enroll.
• Nor do the numbers below include students who didn't drop out, who didn't have the math skills for college, but who decided to just not go to college.

Therefore, for students who graduated from a Spokane high school in 2008 and then enrolled at SCC or SFCC in 2008/2009 -- the number of students requiring remediation in mathematics (Source: Data extracted from May 27, 2010, tables provided by CCS Institutional Research):
Lewis & Clark High School:
SCC: 94.2%
SFCC: 71.8%

Joel E. Ferris High School:
SCC: 100%
SFCC: 69%

North Central High School:
SCC: 100%
SFCC: 91.8%

Shadle Park High School:
SCC: 100%
SFCC: 91.8%

John R. Rogers High School:
SCC: 95.8%
SFCC: 90.9%

Havermale:
SCC: 100%
SFCC: 87.5%

• All told, the overall remedial rate in mathematics from six Spokane high schools at SCC and SFCC is 87%.
• Most of these students tested into Elementary Algebra or below.
• Of the ones who took remedial math classes at SCC and SFCC in 2008/2009, almost 47% of them failed their remedial classes or withdrew early.

These numbers are damning of K-12 mathematics in Spokane Public Schools.
Spokane Public Schools could determine actual remedial rates by providing students with exit exams as they leave high school (based on college placement content). Of course, the administrators would have to want to know the remedial rates. They would have to want to engage in transparency, and to learn from their mistakes.

The Washington Assessment of Student Learning (WASL) has not been good a indicator of college readiness because it was a 10th-grade test, it was based on low-level content, and to pass in 2009, students needed just 56.9%. (And yet, in Spokane in 2009, 57.7% of our 10th-grade students could not pass this low-level math test.)

In 2010, just 43% of Washington State students passed the new test, the HSPE. OSPI did tell everyone this -- 19 paragraphs down in its June 16, 2010, press release.

I have been told that students can deal with the weak math curricula in Spokane Public Schools by enrolling in Advanced Placement classes ... But the AP classes are being opened to everyone, including students who lack skills in arithmetic. Since Spokane Public Schools does not value arithmetic, going so far as to have actively and deliberately prevented teachers from teaching arithmetic -- this could be nearly every student.

This situation is unconscionable, destructive, and deceitful. The school board must get its act together and hold its superintendent and curriculum department accountable. Some firings are warranted -- one firing in particular.



Please note: The information in this post is copyrighted. The proper citation is:
Rogers, L. (June 2010). "Remedial rates: Spokane's big, dirty secret." Retrieved (date) from the Betrayed Web site: http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailing.blogspot.com/

Teachers and parents: Take back the classroom from those who have stolen it

[Edited Oct. 12, 2011, to correct spelling of a name.]

By Laurie H. Rogers


Dear Teachers, Parents and Students in Spokane, WA:

In March 2010, Spokane’s high school math adoption committee recommended Holt Mathematics to the school board as its new high school math curriculum. This was based on:

• the adoption committee’s work over six months
• various assessments of Holt that had been done at the state level
• feedback from piloting teachers in Spokane
• feedback from students and parents in Spokane
• Holt’s superior alignment with the state math standards.

The state assessments chose Holt. Every piloting teacher in Spokane who expressed a preference between Holt and the other finalist chose Holt. Students chose Holt. The Spokane adoption committee chose Holt. The Spokane board adopted Holt. Holt is needed. The math situation in Spokane is desperate.

At SCC and SFCC, the remediation rate in mathematics for recent graduates of Spokane Public Schools is 87.1% (verified). Most test into elementary algebra or below (verified). Of those who take remedial math classes in the SCC system, almost 47% do not pass their remedial classes (also verified). Just 42.3% of Spokane’s high school students passed the 10th grade WASL in 2009. That test was based on 7th and 8th-grade material, and it required a score of just over 56% to pass. But 57.7% of our high school students couldn’t do it. This is not, despite what you’ve heard, the fault of teachers, students, parents or society. This is a direct result of weak math curricula in Spokane, from K-12.

The adoption committee and the piloting teachers chose Holt because of its order, structure and logical presentation. After we voted, Associate Superintendent Karin Short told us all to support the decision. But a few people – several from Ferris High School – continued to agitate against Holt. As of May 2010, Holt Mathematics is suddenly not the new curriculum in Spokane. Teachers are now being told that the standards are the curriculum, and that Holt Mathematics is just "a resource." Teachers will not be allowed to begin on page 1 of the Holt textbook. Instead, the high school program will start with a later chapter, then skip around the book, along with heavy “supplementing” with a program from some folks at Ferris High School.

The Ferris program was supposedly based on the Washington State PEs and the Common Core Standards. But the CCS weren't released in final form until after Ferris began building this program. Additionally, Washington State has not yet adopted the CCS. And yet, the people at Ferris skipped ahead to plan a program based on these national standards.

This is the district’s run-around. They lost the battle, but they intend to win the war. This deceit is supported by curriculum staff and by Superintendent Stowell. They didn’t like how the adoption committee chose, so they are changing the rules to suit them. You are the ones who will pay. These people - this rogue element - in the central office and at Ferris High School apparently believe they know better than:

• the publisher and the math professionals who built Holt Mathematics
• the mathematicians who assessed Holt Mathematics
• the adoption committee that chose Holt Mathematics
• the piloting teachers who chose Holt Mathematics
• the students and parents who chose Holt Mathematics
• the school board director who is a physics professor and who recommended the adoption of Holt Mathematics
• the school board that adopted Holt Mathematics
• the state administrators and legislators who have not yet officially adopted the national standards

Take a lesson, folks. This is true arrogance. They have no research to support their new program, no data that supports their ideology or methodology. They have nothing except their own certainty. And apparently, that's all they think they need. This bastardized program is likely to fail. They will then probably say that Holt failed when in actuality Holt was never given a fair chance. And another entire generation of students, a million taxpayer dollars, and several teachers will be tossed under the bus.

On May 27, 2010, Dr. Stowell, and Board Directors Sue Chapin, Bob Douthitt and Rocky Treppiedi hosted "Educating Spokane," a call-in show on PBS. Asked about Holt Mathematics being shoved aside, Dr. Stowell said that Holt is not the curriculum. The standards are the curriculum, she said.

Another question was asked: "The piloting teachers recommended a curriculum. The committee recommended a curriculum. The board adopted a curriculum. How is it that Holt is not the curriculum?" The superintendent answered that the Holt book was just instructional material, not the curriculum. It wasn't perfect, she said, and so they were “supplementing” it.

Supplementing?? Is it “supplementing” to pick apart the textbook, skip chapters, cut out chunks and bring in their own materials to replace it?? This “process” was fraudulent, and it’s breathtakingly unfair to teachers and students. No longer will it be enough for teachers to just do as they’re told. The system is being set up so that ALL teachers are at risk. Because this process will not work for the students, the math remediation and dropout rates will continue to rise. With the new federal, state and local emphasis on firing "ineffective teachers," teachers will be assessed based on how students do on standardized tests for which the students will not be prepared. Many teachers (at least the ones who do not work at Ferris High School) will be at risk of being disciplined, demoted, retired or fired for being “ineffective” or “insubordinate.”

This is the school district you have right now. It's embarrassing and shameful. But they are not shamed. Nothing will change for you until we have a new superintendent. This district is corrupt. Teachers, parents, students and taxpayers need to rise up and organize, become our own force. We need to take back the classroom from these cynical, self-centered people. Teachers have no protection, not from the unions, not from administrators, not from their state leaders, and – so far – not from the media. But you can rise up en masse and take the classroom back. You can organize in basements, backyards and living rooms, vote no-confidence in your superintendent, and fight for your right to teach. Please come to the next school board meeting – or write to the school board – and tell them to ensure fidelity of implementation of Holt Mathematics.

Ask them to also investigate this fraudulent process.


Please note: The information in this post is copyrighted. The proper citation is: Rogers, L. (May, 2010). "Teachers and parents: Take back the classroom from those who have stolen it." Retrieved (date) from the Betrayed Web site: http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailing.blogspot.com/

On May 12, tell school board to vote no to RTTT

By Laurie H. Rogers


(Updated May 30, 2010: see comment at bottom.)

On May 12, at 7 p.m. Spokane Public Schools board directors will vote on whether to support Washington State's Race to the Top application. I'm asking you to attend that board meeting, or call school board directors, and tell them to vote no. Ask others you know to come or to call. Your rights as a citizen, parent, teacher and taxpayer hang in the balance.

Race to the Top represents a de facto federal takeover of public education. Its intent is unconstitutional and banned in 20 USC 3403. This bare fact is not stopping people at federal, state and local levels from enthusiastically pressing for a handover of state rights and responsibilities for public education to the federal government.

At the school board's May 5 work session, Spokane Superintendent Nancy Stowell articulated her reasons for why the school board should vote to support Washington's Race to the Top application. Note that none of these reasons has to do with improving student learning.

Nancy Stowell argues (paraphrased, unless in quote marks):	Laurie Rogers argues:
Almost everyone else is doing it.	1. Not true. Some states, districts, and policy-makers are saying no. Others are hesitating. 2. Maybe those who are saying yes are making a mistake. 3. If everyone said no, it wouldn’t happen.
Race to the Top is coming, so Spokane might as well get some money for it.	1. This is a revolting, embarrassing argument. When a bad thing looms, we should just sit back and get money for it? What does that make us? 2. This is not "their money," "the money," "federal money," or "some money." This is taxpayer money, all of it. And taxpayers should have a say in how it is spent. Once public education is managed at the federal level, this right will be de facto removed, possibly forever.
Spokane would get about $6.4 million over four years.	1. Half of all "grant" money for Race to the Top stays with administrators at the state level. (That's their cut of the take.) So, if the total is $250 million, the state gets $125 million. 2. IF Washington State gets all $250 million dollars it could get, Spokane will get $6.4 million over four years, which is less than $60 per student per year. 3. Much of the $56.82 per student per year will pay for administrative overhead and bureaucracy. How much will go to the classroom? Any?
Most of what's in the RTTT application will be required by the recently passed Senate Bill 6696.	This is a circular argument. SB6696 was expressly designed to set Washington up to apply for RTTT. But SB6696 is not in stone. It can be reversed.
Many educators said "hallelujah" to SB6696 and said it didn't even go far enough. SB6696 takes us forward to doing business very differently from how we've been doing it.	1. And there you have it. I urge you to read SB6696. It was a bad bill that should not have been passed. It is just the beginning of more bad policy. 2. SB6696 shows you exactly why RTTT is all wrong.
Spokane will have "better positioning" to be "part of the reform movement."	What does this even mean? Education is ALWAYS being reformed. How does RTTT help the students learn better?
People will ask whether Spokane is on board.	Tell them Spokane said no to this federal takeover of public education and to another complete waste of billions of taxpayer dollars.
We have 90 days AFTER getting the money to come up with a plan for spending it.	Superintendent Stowell doesn't have a plan now? So, it's get the money, then figure out how to spend it?
The money is earmarked for things required by U.S. Secretary Arne Duncan.	1. Superintendent Stowell acknowledged that there will be "considerable oversight" of RTTT spending and procedure. She has already complained about the punitive nature of NCLB. Constant hovering by the federal government already takes precious time, money and resources away from the classroom. 2. Superintendent Stowell acknowledged that not everything that is required by RTTT will actually be useful for our students. 3. If RTTT is implemented in this state, bureaucrats in Washington, DC, will decide how to spend our money, educate our children, set policy for our state, assess our teachers - perhaps bargain with our teachers - and run our school district. 4. If you think Arne Duncan has all of the answers, remember that he will not be there forever.
Spokane is "desperate" for money. "We're going after every dollar we can."	1. The Department of Education says $658 billion was spent (from all sources) last year on K-12 education. Much of this was poorly spent. It just vanishes, spent on things that have little public accountability and nothing to do with the classroom. 2. Look at the plans for Race to the Top -- at the 50% going to the state, plus another (unknown) percentage for local administration. All of this vs. the pittance that goes to the classroom.
Signing on to the state application doesn't "bind us" to doing anything.	I keep getting told this, by the ED, the governor's office, and state and district superintendents... I don't see anyone offering a plan or conditions for saying no. Don't believe this false reassurance. None of these people will say no.
We can apply for more money under other aspects of the application.	1. Policy will continue to be set by running after money, instead of doing what is best for the children. 2. What is best for the children has to do with what happens in the classroom. Little of the RTTT money is destined to go there.
This is a quick turnaround, so we have to decide now.	1. The deadline for Washington's application is on June 1, the same day as the projected release of the final draft of the national standards ("common core standards"), the adoption of which is required as part of a successful application. 2. Previous drafts of these national standards indicate that they're weaker than our own state standards. 3. No one will have a chance to see or comment on the final draft of the national standards before Washington's application is sent in. 4. Why the big rush? Why are administrators not taking a moment to ask hard questions about this critical shift in policy?
The two successful state applications had huge district sign-on.	This argument is a red herring. It doesn't support any supposed benefits of the application itself.
"Many educators" believe that if we want our children to be able to compete, we need common standards that all states accept. The national standards will bring needed consistency.	1. Having "common" standards isn't what helps children compete. Having GOOD standards that lead to GOOD curricula is what helps them compete. 2. The national standards that are required as a part of RTTT have so far been WEAKER than Washington's state standards.
"The common core standards is a very small part of this."	The national standards are a HUGE part of this. The national standards are already leading to national tests and plans for national curricula. At that point, the federal government will control the K-12 classroom.
This gives us the opportunity to make some changes we've been wanting to make.	There is nothing stopping this district from making changes it wants to make. However, in exchange for a few dollars, it will be forced to make changes it should not be making.
If we say no now, we can't say yes later.	"Buy NOW or miss out" is a red herring. If Spokane says no, it will be harassed to say yes later. There will always be another chance to say yes to this federal takeover. The real question is: If Spokane says yes now, will it ever have an opportunity later to say no?

Many people want Spokane to sign on: President Obama, Secretary Duncan, Governor Chris Gregoire, Superintendent Randy Dorn, various unions (WASA, AWSP, WEA and WSSDA), and Superintendent Stowell. This is some heavy-duty pushing. None of these people have articulated how RTTT money will help students learn better. Why the big rush? Why the heavy coercion? Why are they not asking nor answering hard questions about this critical shift in policy? Why has so much of the federal and state process on RTTT been done away from the public eye?

I am asking you to go to the school board meeting on May 12 and tell the school board to say no to supporting Washington State's Race to the Top application. If you can't go, please write to them or call them individually. This might be the last chance you get.

(Update May 30, 2010: Comment from Laurie Rogers.
On May 12, 2010, The school board voted 3-2, with Dr. Jeff Bierman and President Sue Chapin dissenting, to sign on to Race to the Top. The argumentation for signing on was as weak as the argumentation noted above. Directors didn't answer the concerns from the public - or even concerns from within their own ranks. It was a truly embarrassing display. This school board sold its teachers, parents and students for a nickel it isn't even certain to get. Shameful.)

Please note: The information in this post is copyrighted. The proper citation is: Rogers, L. (May, 2010). "On May 12, tell school board to vote no to RTTT." Retrieved (date) from the Betrayed Web site: http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailing.blogspot.com/