In defense of public-records requesters

By Laurie H. Rogers

"There are laws to protect the freedom of the press's speech, but none that are worth anything to protect the people from the press." ~Mark Twain

“If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing.” ~Malcolm X

It’s true; the media have the power to destroy. But their real job is to uphold truth, accountability and transparency; to inform the people; and to investigate and shine a light on wrongdoing.

Today’s media are struggling to remain afloat. Challenged by blogs and Web sites, and accused of shallowness and bias, traditional media are scrambling to remain relevant and to retain readership. Many have cut space and reporting staff and now depend heavily on wire reports. Basic principles of journalism have been ground into dust under the need to satisfy advertisers and allies. It’s become convenient for media to use “stories” already written by government agencies (including school districts) and corporations. In return, the agencies ask for favorable coverage, which they get.

Interrupting this symbiotic relationship are the citizens. We depend on the media to spend time and money looking into things that sometimes make the media’s allies and advertisers uncomfortable. But when the media refuse to investigate, they’re failing in their prime directives.

Over the last year, media response to multiple attacks on transparent government at state and federal levels was muted. As the Department of Justice argued to be able to lie about the existence of records, as the Department of Education ignored multiple Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests about its activities, as the Washington governor argued to be able to withhold records based on “executive privilege,” and as various legislators pushed to basically eliminate the Public Records Act in Washington State – our media outlets – champions of transparency and ethics in others – were virtually silent.

A leaner and more efficient government will not be the result of eliminating laws that promote a transparent or open government (sometimes known as “Sunshine Laws”). Secrecy corrupts, and corruption wants secrecy. The American government is to be “by the people” and “for the people.” Citizens have the inherent right and constitutional right to know what our government is doing. Without laws ensuring open government, we’re likely to wind up with a fascist government.

So far, Washington State has been a leader in open government. In 1972, voters passed Initiative 276, mandating that government agencies provide government records to the public when asked to do so. In 2005, this law was strengthened and encapsulated in the Public Records Act, RCW 42.56. According to the Attorney General, this law is based on three important principles:

1. The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies that serve them.
2. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know.
3. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may maintain control over the instruments that they have created.

Since the Public Records Act (PRA) was passed, many exemptions to the law have been added. And this year, there were multiple legislative efforts to pass bills that would have de facto eliminated the PRA for most citizens. As supposed defenders of the First Amendment, of transparent government and of the “little guy” – you’d think the media would be all over that. Instead, local media ignored most of those efforts and attacked citizens on some of the rest.

For example, board directors of Spokane Public Schools made it a 2012 Legislative Priority to de facto toss out the PRA by making it too expensive for most citizens. They asked Senator Lisa Brown to sponsor legislation that would charge citizens the costs of responding to requests for public records.

Senator Brown obliged by introducing SB 6576, which would have required that all school districts charge citizens for (whatever the districts claim are) personnel costs to research, compile and copy public records. But those employees already receive a salary, paid for by taxpayers. What sense would it make for citizens to pay that money again? This action seems spiteful and obstructive. Most private citizens can’t afford the costs associated with making a public records request. Senator Brown’s bill was introduced Feb. 1, with a public hearing Feb. 6, the day after Super Bowl Sunday. Her timing eliminated the ability of most citizens to attend. The bill didn’t pass this year, but a Spokane administrator said they might try again next year.

Also introduced this year were SB 6351 and companion bill HB 2677. Tucked into a bill that pertains to inmates, the language of these bills applies to all citizens. The bills would have allowed all public agencies to threaten the public with injunctions against records requests, to file for injunctions, to limit time spent on fulfilling requests, and to refuse to fulfill further requests from certain requesters.

Also introduced were SB 5062 and companion bill HB 1139. These bills would have removed penalties for the failure of a public agency to provide records, as long as the agency provided the missing records within 30 days of being notified that the records are missing. Requesters would have to KNOW which records were missing. These bills would have allowed public agencies to decline to provide pertinent records, betting that most citizens would not discover that records were missing.

Agencies claimed that they’re overwhelmed with requests or that they’re being targeted by abusive requesters with a vendetta. But a Spokane Public Schools administrator has publicly implied that two citizens who each filed a single request are abusive.

I, too, was implied to be abusive. For more than five years, I’ve done my best to find out what this district is doing with our dollars and our children. Local media seem disinclined to investigate the district, so if I am to be informed and accurate and to NOT spread misinformation, then I must obtain public records. At some point in 2011, it seemed that the district was redirecting all of my requests to Associate Superintendent Mark Anderson. Even a request for a simple report went through him. My polite questioning of this new policy was futile. Anderson told me: “Because of the many laws that regulate disclosure of public documents, I hope you will understand and respect the reasons why the District strives for uniformity and consistency in the intake and processing of record requests.”

Not true. The process for me has not been the process for everyone. Some requesters must go through Anderson; others don’t. Some are threatened with an injunction against their request; others aren’t.

The Public Records Act says agencies must provide the most timely response possible, and the fullest assistance. But, with some requests, Spokane Public Schools now purposefully prints out electronic records, then painstakingly scans them into a PDF. With some requests, the district now withholds records while it notifies thousands of citizens about the request and tells them they can 1) file for an injunction and 2) call the district for more information.

Are you getting the picture? The school district appears to have purposefully made the process more difficult for itself and for select citizen requesters. Now, it complains about how difficult the process is.

The Public Disclosure Commission (which oversees election activity) and the Attorney General’s Office (which oversees the PRA) do not typically initiate legal action against agencies for violations. It’s up to the citizens. Although the PDC and AGO are accommodating and professional, there is no local agency that offers advice or guidance. Citizens must do the best they can to request public records and to file formal complaints. It takes uncommon knowledge, effort and time to do it well.

If push comes to shove, citizens stand little chance against the government’s lawyers, who ironically are paid with taxpayer dollars. It takes knowledge to navigate the laws, and skill and money to navigate the legal system. It isn’t a fair or reasonable battle. Most people will give up, and I suspect that’s the point. Considering the foregoing, those who are willing to wade into the fray should be praised, not attacked, particularly if a public agency goes out of its way to be intimidating or to threaten or bully requesters.

In a Feb. 15, 2012, article, Inlander reporter Nicholas Deshais gave school district administrators the opportunity to publicly imply that three local citizens, including yours truly, are abusive requesters. Deshais wrote:

“Spokane Public Schools handled 34 requests for public records in 2009. Two years later, that number was up to about 90. Mark Anderson, associate superintendent of the district, handles the requests. He lays the blame for this sharp rise at the feet of one group of activists. ‘They probably make up 70 percent of the time, I’d say,’ Anderson says of the time needed to process requests made by Laurie Rogers, Breean (sic) Treffry, and Paul LeCoq (sic), three outspoken critics of the district. ‘The nature of the requests are (sic) getting more and more expansive.’”

Deshais didn't mention that Treffry and Lecoq each have filed a single request. Many other people also file requests, including staff from The Spokesman-Review (SR), Deshais himself and Inlander colleague Daniel Walters. But district spokesperson Terren Roloff said those requests aren’t abusive.

No kidding. It wouldn’t be smart of Roloff to criticize people who support school district positions. In fact, it’s probably smarter of her to nominate them for an award.

Meanwhile, in a March 2012 commentary, the SR’s Shawn Vestal wrote that some “opposition” to the school district seems “less than fully hinged.” Vestal called my work “conspiracy-minded” and “poorly informed” – oh, the irony. He suggested that these efforts are a “fishing expedition” and a “paper chase” over some “vast, vague conspiracy.” Then he gave a grudging acknowledgment that I might nevertheless have managed to stumble over something worth discussing – along the lines of “Even a blind hog finds an acorn once in a while.”

Vestal didn’t acknowledge that the newspaper has refused for years to properly investigate the school district. He didn’t say whether he has filed any requests (if it was just one, he’s on par with two of the citizens he criticized), nor did he mention fellow reporter Jody Lawrence-Turner’s numerous requests of the district for data, information and story ideas. Vestal also declined to mention the media’s failed “fishing expedition” last year on local teacher Jennifer Walther. (Convenient, that.)

I haven’t claimed a conspiracy. Vestal suggested I did and then criticized me for it. I also didn’t “object” to being called “a conservative.” In an email, I asked him to support his description of me, which he failed to adequately do. I’ve never actually spoken with Vestal. Why would I? I don’t see him as being on the side of truth, fairness, accuracy or the people.

A school-district employee told me last week that these records requests seem like a “waste of time.” I assure you they are not. Ensuring a transparent government is never a “waste of time.” Two of the records requests have led to a formal investigation by the Public Disclosure Commission.

I will continue to do the job Vestal and so many of his media colleagues are refusing to do. Information is power, and We, the People must have that power. Knowledge is critical to maintaining a free country, particularly in today’s time, when so many in the media appear to see the government as the victim and the people as the problem.

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

Here is some information on Washington State’s Public Records Act. It’s a people’s initiative, there for the citizens. Even if the media don’t value it, We the People must.

From the Attorney General’s Web site: “Citizens can control their government only if they remain informed about the decisions their government officials are making. That important principle underlies Washington's open public records and meeting laws. The laws, which are now more than three decades old, are intended to give us an informed electorate that can evaluate the performance of elected officials and in order to ensure an honest, competent and responsive government.”

For directions on public records requests, see the AG Web site. The Public Records Act applies to all government agencies, not just to school districts. It helps citizens hold their city, their county, their Public Health District, or any other public agency accountable for its actions.

Please help defend open government in this country. Do not allow our government agencies to conduct the people’s business in secret, as we pay their salaries and entrust them with our children.

If you want to know more about RCW 42.56, the Public Disclosure Commission, public records requests, the records requests I’ve filed, or why I’m doing what I’m doing, please write to me at wlroge@comcast.net.


Please note: The information in this post is copyrighted. The proper citation is:

Rogers, L. (April 2012). “In defense of public-records requesters." Retrieved (date) from the Betrayed Web site: http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailing.blogspot.com/.

This article was republished April 16, 2012 on Education Views at: http://educationviews.org/2012/04/16/in-defense-of-public-records-requesters/

Has constructivism increased special-education enrollment in public schools?

By Nakonia (Niki) Hayes


As a teacher and administrator for 28 years, I rebelled against the disastrous fad of constructivism that began in the 1980’s. While its drumbeaters declared it was a higher form of intellectualism, it didn’t seem all that “intelligent” to me. Frankly, I thought it would help create failures among all groups of students—regular, special, and gifted.

For those who don’t know what “constructivism” is, it is an educational theory that, in practice, looks like this in America’s classrooms:

• It is students from kindergarten through high school “discovering” their own answers by using manipulatives, working in groups, contriving “real world” problems through “project-based’ activities, moving and talking –a lot, and surviving in a hierarchy of those students who can lead and those who must follow according to their skills.
• It is lots of colorful, jazzy pictures in books and on classroom walls that show many different ethnic groups, women, with gender-neutral stories, and with child-directed activities that only require teacher “facilitation.” Children rule the day.
• It is feminized instruction that supports the goal of public education to provide egalitarianism or equity, especially to girls and minorities. That’s the priority placed over building excellence, since excellence smacks of cognitive exceptionalism. That ability is not appreciated nor encouraged where equity is to be the norm in classrooms.
• It ridicules practice and repetition as “drill and kill” and believes anything that requires memorization is a waste of time that should be used for “creative” thinking.
• It focuses on process, not results. “Process” is the actual “product” of learning.
• It believes that if students are having fun, according to perceived “learning styles,” they will like going to school and they will learn the academics they need to prepare for the world of work.

No one will ever be able to determine how many hundreds of thousands of children, who came from dysfunctional, even chaotic, home environments and who entered the constructivist classroom with its lack of boundaries, no right or wrong answers, and the expectation to “discover” their own answers, were shuffled from the “feel-good, tolerant, and fun system” into special education programs. For some strange reason, these kids were declared “discipline” problems. Perhaps if they had been given structure and safety based on routines that established boundaries, along with consistency from adult leaders who taught them about individual responsibility, they would have learned the hidden “rules” of school. What they also deserved was the power that comes from learning proven strategies, true results every time, and a respect for the academic giants who came before them and developed universal lessons from diverse cultures.

Although I had taught journalism, English and art for several years in the 1960’s and 1970’s, I returned to education in the 1980’s as a special education teacher after working 17 years in journalistic fields. I came to realize that half of my students should not have been placed in that program. Those students were there because of cultural deprivation and poor curricula, not because of organically-caused learning disabilities. Then through the 1990’s and until my retirement in 2006, I taught regular (traditional) math in grades six through twelve in mostly high-risk schools, was a middle school and high school counselor, and a K-12 principal in two very different school districts: One was an Indian reservation and the other in Seattle with a predominantly white, upper-middle-class population. No matter what the environment, however, I learned that my special education training was invaluable with all groups of learners.

For example, many exhibited, even if not diagnosed, the characteristics of ADHD, dyslexia, and SLD (specific learning disabilities). My under-performing gifted kids were in a separate category, although some states do put them under “special education.”

ADHD

This condition is apparent from birth and must be seen in at least two different environments, not suddenly after one month in kindergarten or shifts to the new puberty-driven warehouse of education called “middle school.” (A sixth-grade teacher once asked me, “When do we get to call it just ‘bad behavior’?”)

Nonetheless, for those who were diagnosed with ADHD, and those who weren’t but who were as inattentive and wiggly, I used the same techniques:

• Act, don’t yak. The more you talk to an ADHD student, the more he gets lost. That includes working in group projects.
• Assign them to men teachers, if possible, because men are usually more goal-driven and less talkative. ADHD students want to know the bottom line.
• If you want to change behavior, change the academics. Make lessons and teaching structured, short, and frequently rewarded. (Even one sticker works.)
• Keep wall decorations to a minimum. One big, interesting poster is great for discussion and focus. Forget all the ceiling mobiles, color-drenched walls, etc.
• Give students permission to move their bodies, whether to lie on the floor, sit on a rotating stool, or stand at a bookcase as they write. The more they are in movement with others, however, they can become agitated as they “lose” their direction and perspective on what’s happening.
• In essence, be clear, direct, and honest (no phony praise). They’ll love you for it.

Dyslexia

While there are no studies to prove it, many of us in education believe the “whole language” fad of the 1980’s helped exacerbate a learning condition called dyslexia. This is an organic auditory problem where a child cannot hear the correct sounds of letters. Phonemic and spelling books were closeted during the 1980’s because they were considered too mechanical and boring in their purpose. Instead, children were to be exposed to great literature and discuss their own “personal” stories. (This made learning more “relevant” to them.) Somehow, they would absorb the rules of grammar and spelling. Instead, we produced a generation who could not spell, write simple sentences and read. It was like teaching children to play the piano by ear rather than by learning the sounds of the notes and requiring practice to master those sounds. Since students weren’t taught phonics from a good phonemic awareness curriculum, they couldn’t read. They were then labeled “dyslexic” and shuffled to remediation/special education programs.

Most dyslexics, like ADHD students, reveal a high intelligence once they get past their processing “disability.” Interestingly, constructivists claim to focus on “processing.” Yet they have disdain for concrete, precise, and universal strategies that help correct episodic processing deficiencies.

Specific Learning Disabilities

When special education students are included in regular classrooms, they need structure, consistent rules and expectations, a sense of safety given by regular routines, and teacher-directed learning. This is not the atmosphere found in constructivist classrooms. Of course, the dynamics of a carefully selected, mixed-ability classroom can indeed work with an organized and talented teacher. There are such teachers out there for mixed classrooms. Mostly, there are not because there are few “carefully mixed” classes.

Special Note: The move in 1989 by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) to bring equity to girls and minorities in math classrooms meant a giant move toward feminization of mathematics instruction. This would be a major blow to boys since the majority of special education placement was already for male students, particularly those with ADHD diagnoses. The NCTM president in 1996 explained in a radio interview that girls and minorities couldn’t learn math like “white males.” The 2,000-year-old discipline of mathematics, created by diverse cultures around the world, was now pronounced as destructive to girls and minorities. Its “traditional” approach of linear thinking, practice, and memorization of multiplication tables, was only learnable by white boys (and Asians).

This meant new materials and methods would avoid any “traditional” teaching methods. Basic skills that required memorization (which helps build memory capacity) were also seen as unnecessary because students could use calculators and computers for short-term expediency. The result has been a hatred for math among all “sub-groups” of students, a $4 billion private tutoring industry mostly for math, and an unyielding failure rate of American students entering advanced math and science studies.

Under-Performing Gifted Students

The push for egalitarianism was also designed to ignore exceptional, or gifted, students. The all-inclusive classroom where special ed students were blended with regular and gifted students produced another fad called “differentiated learning.” This is a teacher’s nightmare to plan. It is, therefore, usually an unproductive environment for most students.

In the inclusive classroom, a teacher ends up focusing on the neediest children because that is the goal for egalitarians. The regular and gifted students are considered able to fend for themselves. They aren’t. They lose academic opportunities and growth. And they lose their patience, as most humans do when their needs are continually dismissed or openly ignored. A gifted student will shut down as much as any special ed student because he hasn’t learned basic and general strategies on how to approach a solution. Neither one wants to look dumb. “Better to be thought that way than prove it,” they say.

One of the saddest stories I heard was from Dr. Ruby Payne, who conducts professional development training for teachers who work with students and adults from poverty. She explained that third-grade African American boys who showed signs of giftedness were often labeled “emotionally disturbed” and placed in special education. (ADHD children’s symptoms also mirror those of gifted children.) Part of that problem resulted from not knowing how to measure giftedness outside of scores on math and reading tests. Another part was in seeing giftedness as exceptionalism and that was to be downplayed. These children then became under-performing or major disciplinary problems as their own needs, often ones that saw them wanting to work alone, weren’t met in the highly interactive, noisy, motion-filled classrooms designed, teachers thought, to meet lower-performing students’ needs (girls and minorities, except Asians).

Summary

For almost three decades, I personally saw that when children were given explicit, step-driven instruction with consistent consequences of positive results, along with direct teacher support, they learned their required academics no matter what their gender, race, economic status, or intelligence level. This methodology has now been proven according to an article published this month in the American Federation of Teachers’ magazine, American Educator ( http://www.aft.org/pdfs/americaneducator/spring2012/Clark.pdf ).

I therefore believe the radical and destructive implementation of constructivist ideology in education has increased the numbers of students in public schools being labeled “special education” or in the development of characteristics of special needs students.

It is unlikely that anyone can ever tally the unbelievable human and financial costs of education fads in America, with constructivism being the Big Daddy of them all. Education decision-makers grabbed onto unproven and unproductive methods with which they trained and evaluated teachers. Government entities like the National Science Foundation and U.S. Department of Education pumped almost $100 million into the new, unproven curricula and training materials in the 1990’s alone. Private businesses and more non-state government groups are now getting into the picture. Billions of dollars are at stake today, yet no one acknowledges the importance of weak and incoherent curricula on teacher training. Meanwhile, the same members of the leadership circle that have brought American students to their knees are still in charge. The question is “Why?”

Since removal of those leaders seems impossible, local districts can at least offer parents a choice within each school: Do they want their child to follow traditional, explicit curricula or that of the constructivist/reform model? Just once, it would be great to hear an honest answer as to why this can’t be done. And it’s not about money.


Nakonia (Niki) Hayes is the author of "John Saxon's Story: A genius of common sense in math education." She is certified and experienced in journalism, counseling, special education, mathematics, and administration during 28 years in public education. She worked in various journalism fields for 17 years, including with two state senators and a U.S. congressman. She also published historical and contemporary articles on American Indians and Micronesia (with the U.S. Department of Interior) during that period. She is director of K-8 Emmanuel Academy for tutoring of reading, writing, and math in Waco, TX, and she tutors in Saxon Math at a local Catholic elementary school. She has a Web site at this address. Email Niki at nakonia69@saxonmathwarrior.com

This article was previously published on Education Views at: http://educationviews.org/2012/04/10/has-constructivism-increased-special-education-enrollment-in-public-schools/. It was republished here with permission of the author. 

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 about 1,000 words, give or take a few. 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.

A statistician’s view of constructivist math programs

By Nicole O. Stouffer

"It's like these administrators never even met a child."
- Nik Stouffer

I’ve had 4 years of undergraduate math courses, two years of graduate math courses, and I have taught graduate-level math courses. I had never seen the "lattice" method, the Egyptian method, or any of these other alternative algorithms until last year when I looked at Everyday Math homework. Students don’t need them, and those methods will not help a student move onto higher mathematics.

I would have been laughed out of my college classes if I used the "partial sums" method to add. I wouldn’t have been able to take differential equations if I hadn’t mastered long division. There is a reason why traditional algorithms (the math methods you learned in school to add, subtract, multiply and divide) are needed. Traditional algorithms are needed to understand higher mathematics in college. It is extremely important that they are practiced until they are mastered. In fact, the new Common Core State math standards recommend teaching the standard algorithms.

You might think there is no reason not to offer alternative algorithms, as long as they also teach the traditional methods, but I have three reasons why the teaching of alternative programs is a problem.

• It is a waste of classroom time. There are plenty of other items to be covered and practiced, so students should avoid learning inefficient algorithms.
• Offering children too many algorithm choices is confusing. I have seen kids straddle two methods, not really understanding either of them and becoming frustrated.
• Students are not permitted to use these alternative algorithms in college-level math.

Everyday Math does not prepare students for middle school math. There is a huge disconnect between Everyday Math and the rest of your child’s academic career.

My advice to parents… Work with your child to reinforce the traditional math algorithms that you learned. E-mail your principal and board directors to urge them to stop the use of these alternative methods in school and start using a more traditional textbook that uses the most efficient algorithms recommended by the Common Core State Standards.

Spiraling

The core principle behind Medford’s K-5 math program, Everyday Math, is based on a style called “spiraling,” where students continually return to basic ideas as new concepts are added over the entire year. Mostly, spiraling makes sense because kids need to return to topics periodically throughout the school year to remind them of what they have previously learned so they can build on it.

Everyday Math and other reform math programs like it do not use spiraling in this way. They don’t allow time for a child to master a skill before moving onto something else. The topics change so rapidly that kids never get a chance to feel successful in mathematics. Just as they are working toward figuring a concept out, Everyday Math will abruptly move onto another concept completely unrelated to the last. By the time a student returns (spirals back) to a concept, the child has forgotten the skill. Mathematics is a subject better suited toward mastery because the nature of math itself is linear and builds upon skills that are mastered in a sequential and logical fashion.

Everyday Math, Investigations in Number, Data, and Space, and other reform math programs have been highly criticized because of the lack of “focus” that comes with incoherent topic changes from excessive spiraling. In fact, the Common Core State Standards insist that a math curriculum be “more focused.” The final report of the 2008 President’s National Mathematics Advisory Panel (NMAP) recommends, “A focused, coherent progression of mathematics learning, with an emphasis on proficiency with key topics, should become the norm in elementary and middle school mathematics curricula. Any approach that continually revisits topics year after year without closure is to be avoided."

Of course, the authors of Everyday Math sent a letter arguing, “the spiral approach should be more effective than a focused approach.” They are right, it “SHOULD be,” but it isn’t because of the way they do it. This is the reason the NMAP recommended it should be avoided. The authors of Everyday Math decided that they were right and everyone else was wrong. So Everyday Math still continues to randomly bounce from topic to topic each week and never allow enough time for practice or mastery. Even though the authors refused to change Everyday Math to be more focused, that didn’t stop them from slapping a label on their book that says “Common Core State Standards 100% Alignment.”

Shouldn’t our students have a focused textbook that actually aligns to the more-efficient methods recommended by the President’s National Mathematics Advisory Panel and the Common Core State Standards?

Supplementation

Everyday Math and other reform math programs require a lot of patching and fixing. I have talked with several teachers who have to rip pages out of the book and completely re-order the lessons and add additional lessons to make Everyday Math work. They have to practically rewrite an entire curriculum because Everyday Math is so poorly designed. After a few years, teachers can work out the bugs and the kinks and realize what to throw away and what to add, but if they move to a different grade level then they have to do this work all over again. It’s is a real problem when substitutes or new teachers have to experience this inadequate program for the first time because they might not realize how bad this program really is until they actually start using it to teach.

Last year, I had an issue with statistics because Everyday Math has watered down the First Grade lessons in probability to the point where they’re actually wrong. As a statistician, I find it frustrating to see statistical words used incorrectly and statistical concepts presented incorrectly. I wrote to my child’s teacher, who referred me to the principal. He told me that the teachers were required to teach to the curriculum and there was nothing that could be done about the fact that the book was teaching something incorrectly. The principal suggested that I “write the authors of the book.” I’ve been told by the Board of Education not to worry about the bad math program because teachers supplement to make it work. But how much can teachers really supplement and change from the set curriculum? And why would we insist on giving them such a bad tool that requires so much work on their part? Why don’t we give the teachers the best tools to teach our kids?

Minimally Guided Instruction

You could tell your children to “Go clean your room,” or you can tell them, “Put your dirty clothes in the hamper, make your bed, and put your toys in the toy box and books on your book shelf.” Which of the two examples would teach your children how to clean their room? The first is an example of minimally guided instruction and the second is an example of guidance-specific instruction.

There might be examples where minimally guided instruction is an effective teaching tool, but learning how to clean your room and learning grade-school mathematics aren’t two of them. Unfortunately, the math programs Investigations in Number, Data, and Space, Everyday Math and Connected Mathematics, expect children to ‘discover’ mathematics on their own with minimal guidance from the teacher. Many elementary school teachers in NJ don’t buy into that nonsense, so they provide the little kids with more guidance. In middle school, in some districts in New Jersey, such as Medford township, offer a pre-math class where the student is taught directly, with worked examples, before they get to the actual math class where the student is expected to ‘discover’ math for him/herself. Does that make sense to you? Me neither. Why wouldn’t the school just use a math book that directly teaches math instead of offering two math classes to cover up an ineffective Connected Mathematics book that uses the failed method of minimally guided instruction?

Don’t take my word for it, Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark (2006) show that minimally guided instruction goes against more than fifty years of research on human cognitive architecture. There is overwhelming evidence that minimally guided instruction is a less efficient and less effective teaching style.

A bigger problem that affects all students is that it takes time for a child to ‘discover’ mathematics, so Connected Mathematics wastes a lot of classroom time ‘discovering,’ instead of directly teaching efficient methods for solving math problems. Compared to other middle school math books, Connected Mathematics actually covers less material. This means that all students, especially the kids who don’t need the pre-math class, could be learning more than what is presented in class.

Unfortunately, the missing concepts will eventually catch up with a student when they enter high school algebra because you can’t learn what is never taught.

Nik Stouffer is a statistical consultant with more than 15 years of experience. She has a Masters degree in mathematics and has taught graduate school mathematics classes. Website: http://www.medical-research-support.com/

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 about 1,000 words, give or take a few. 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.

14 reasons schools are troubled (and no, it’s not all about teachers)

By Ron Willett


It is both bizarre and egregious to see a big lie used in the movement to allegedly reform America’s public K-12 schools: That is, America’s teachers are the fulcrum and sole arbiters of whether U.S. public K-12 education is working.

Some underprepared and underperforming teachers are undoubtedly in the roster of causal factors for schools’ learning deficits. Juxtaposed against approximately 3.5 million U.S. human resources practicing the profession just in K-12, and the propositions by J. C. F. Gauss, it is amazing that the franchise is as excellent as it has been.

After a decade of studying U.S. K-12 education, in some cases up close and personal, I think it is likely that a larger fraction of underprepared, besieged, or dogmatic K-12 principals and superintendents are accountable. The two former conditions trace to marginal preparation for the organizational and management tasks faced, a product of sub-par managerial training, and an organizational culture that is more complex than most private sector firms in asset size or head counts.

The latter condition is more problematic, a function of Lord Acton’s most famous lament (“Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely”), and the discontinuity between qualities required by a de facto educational CEO versus how they are recruited and hired. Few local school boards have the experience to hire a superintendent, who may hold an EdD or PhD, and needs the vetting aligned with the management challenge of a complex system.

Aggravating the challenge, in the writer’s home state the only requirement to become a superintendent, given prior district or system service, is a one-page application and check payable to its Department of Education, along with a job offer as a superintendent. The department lacks even the manpower to verify degrees claimed.

This is just a beginning to understanding why our teachers should not be burned at the stake. There are 12 other entities that play a major role in whether a district, or school, or even a classroom can meet our learning goals:

• Inept local school boards; this is not just an off-hand pejorative, but the result of decades of refusal of states to attempt serious reform of how boards are chosen and held accountable. There is also this puzzling conundrum: How does a group of intelligent, generally public-spirited, and frequently professional citizens taken individually, turn into a paranoid, secretive, and self-righteous organization, that either micromanages, plugs minutiae, or hides and is intimidated by school administration?
• Politicized state boards and departments of education as a byproduct of the mashup of No Child Left Behind, Race to the Top, and ideology, leaving even educationally aware departments caught between the U.S. Department of Education, state legislatures, and limited dollar resources and information to assert better strategies.
• A corporate testing and textbook oligopoly, producing testing that bypasses genuine learning; now suspected of even rigging some testing to assure failures, to sustain the demand for tests and scoring.
• A small army of opportunistic charter school and voucher entrepreneurs.
• The U.S. Department of Education, that as late as a couple of years ago was actually focusing on legitimate classroom research on what actually works.
• A pedantic or “tracked” Arne Duncan, and misinformed President Obama, who in a liberal surge to erase educational inequity have paradoxically adopted the conservative and corporate reform mantra and rendition of accountability, smashing head-on into the "law of unintended consequences."
• The political right wing’s sworn enemies of the U.S. system of public education, who would prefer to see it replaced by a market-driven system, plus eliminate the U.S. Department of Education.
• Naïve advocacy by Gates and Kopp, et al., including even the now highly praised Kahn Academy and its bite-sized learning menu abstracted from MIT’s free STEM and other curricula, that still manage to bypass genuine knowledge creation as defined by students of learning.
• A sluggish and partisan U.S. Congress, that could have made No Child Left Behind into something rational.
• The K-12 public education establishment itself, and its unions, that delayed far too long to start internally reforming their strategies and rubrics to respond to both market needs, organizational innovation, and the neural science of learning firming up in the last decade.
• Most of our collegiate schools of education that have taken a knee or run for cover rather than stand up and execute needed self-reform.
• Growing American economic and cultural poverty surrounding too many of its children, and that even when it was earlier improving, was still an acknowledged tactical impediment to learning for many children at the classroom level.

The observant reader may note that the above list is one short. Here it is, though it is not politically correct to say: “America’s K-12 parents.”

So, metaphorically, kill the bad teachers and learning will automatically improve? More likely, do that and in ten years the United States will have to have most K-12 education online, or home-schooled, or see a doubling of class sizes.

Teach for America founder Wendy Kopp can work like a demon to extract more grant and foundation dollars, and the United States will still have a teacher crisis because every TFA teacher will likely need to have their hand held by a master teacher for at least several years to become effective in a classroom, or the cultural impact of demonizing some teachers will halo to all teachers — already happening — throttling motivation to even approach the profession. Another unthinking victim of the aforementioned “law.”

The arguments to date about the flaws in present standardized testing are damaging enough to be grounds for getting back to sanity. But even these arguments pale compared to the misdirection of reform created by simply ignoring that K-12 education is not a one-cause system, and that it will take a balanced portfolio to change U.S. K-12 learning performance.


[Note from Laurie Rogers: In a later blog, Ron Willett offers solutions to the problems he articulated above, along with commentary about the curriculum and the Common Core Standards. I did ask
Dr. Willett about his comments about the political right ("enemies") and political left ("misinformed"), and he modified the article slightly but left in the language. Nevertheless, there is a lot here to like.]

The above article was published with permission from author Ronald Willett. Willett is a self-described “fish-with-feathers,” from a quarter century as B-school professor, researcher, and administrator, transitioning to the private sector as an entrepreneur and CEO. His avocation for over a decade has been researching U.S. K-12, and advocacy of K-12 reform and learning innovation. His web site is Reanimating Public Education: Challenges & Futures, and he may be reached for comment or critique at rwillett@nktelco.net. The post originally appeared in the 3/17/2012 Washington Post education section, in the feature “The Answer Sheet.”



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 about 1,000 words, give or take a few. 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.

In long-expected move - legislators, school districts outlaw the children

By Laurie H. Rogers

(Note: This article is a satire that contains much truth.)

Perched up there the tears of others are never upon our own cheek.”

― Elizabeth Goudge, The White Witch

“I say let the world go to hell, but I should always have my tea.”

― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Notes from Underground

Republicans, Democrats, progressives, communists, anarchists, elitists, corporatists and fascists are finally working together – in a multi-partisan effort to look the same. Having outlawed logic several sessions ago, Washington legislators are fixing education by breaking it some more.

• HB 2799 would pay the deep thinkers in the colleges of education to “partner” with K-12 on “innovation,” thus sending all of us farther into financial, academic and social ruin.
• HB 2337 would pay the geniuses at the state education agency to write online curricula in alignment with the unfunded, unproved, arguably illegal, obscenely expensive de facto federal mandate called the Common Core. Legislators who had promised to help fight off the Common Core defended their support of HB 2337 by saying, “Shut up. Don’t be so negative.”
• HB 2586 would pay for mandated standardized testing of kindergartners, getting them started early with government brow-beating and low self-esteem. Legislators explained the idea: “Why should kindergartners feel good about themselves? Nobody else gets to do it.”
• HB 2533 was affectionately dubbed “Fund the Education Mob First.” Legislators defended their support of this bill by refusing to discuss it.

School districts already suffering from a phenomenal growth in their operating and capital projects budgets over ten years have been forced to consider doing things properly and efficiently. Desperate, they begged for help, and lawmakers came to their aid by voting to eliminate everything from school buildings other than administrative staff. As a matter of efficiency, the measures became law before they were written.

As a result of these measures, school district buildings in Washington State soon will have nothing in them but administrators, support staff and “Vote Yes for Kids!” signs. Forums were held around the state to pretend to gather feedback. In Spokane, administrators shrugged and said, “So what? We’ve already begun to do that. We’ve been trying to get rid of the little buggers for decades.”

At a town hall meeting, a representative seemed puzzled when asked if banning the children would be academically counterproductive. “Academics? In public schools? That’s funny,” he chuckled, sipping a latte. “Oh, you’re serious. Well, we can’t fund everything. Everyone has to sacrifice.”

Union leaders attending the town hall meeting defended the decision, in a show of strength and supreme self-interest. “Why should we fight for children?” a union president sniffed. “Do children ever fight for us? No, they do not. Go ask them why they’re so focused on themselves. Irritating little snots.” Asked about academics, she looked blanker than normal. “Academics?” she asked. “What? Where?”

A few reporters at the meeting roused themselves from a decade-long stupor to ask a board director about the decision. The board director looked in vain for his District Talking Points. “Well, yes, it’s unusual, to be sure,” he said, carefully, unused to thinking for himself. He looked around for help, but administrators were off collecting favors. He began to sweat. “It’s precedent-setting. Unprecedented. Innovative, you know. Transformative. Part of the reform.” His voice trailed off.

“We had to do it,” he said suddenly. “We gave the keys to the U.S. Department of Education, and the secretary said he’d get us a spare set. We haven’t gotten them back yet. Maybe the mail is late… I don’t know.” He stopped, horrified. “This is not good for me,” he said, rushing off.

“Sanity has become vanity,” chuckled a math teacher, watching the board director escape. The teacher thought fondly of his third margarita of the day, now two margaritas ago. “I lost my man-ity when we lost our sanity,” he sang softly. He glared at the room, then hiccupped. “No one will let me save the children, you know,” he confided, his breath an alcoholic mist. “But I am allowed to save the manatees.”

Asked about the children, another board director snapped, “Who cares?” Then he remembered his Talking Points. “No, wait,” he said sincerely. “That’s not right. It’s all about the kids.”

“Hey, look, you, you’re missing the point,” a tech vendor fretted, looking over a parent’s shoulder. “What are you writing? Stop that. It isn’t about us. You seem obsessed, and you’re very negative. You aren’t all that likable, either, I don’t know if anyone has said that to you. No offense. But you don’t understand what we’re going through. We aren’t bad people. We just want to do what’s best for us. For the kids, I mean. Damn it, I keep mixing that up. It’s really all about the kids.”

The vendor was tapped on the shoulder, and he turned around. “Oh, thank you,” he said politely, stuffing a hundred-dollar bill down his pants. “I got my kids through private school this way,” he confided.

Meanwhile, local citizens were startled to find out that their children had been outlawed. “What the heck?” asked a perplexed parent. “Aren’t schools supposed to have children in them?”

“Not necessarily,” replied a superintendent. “We wish we could accommodate that. We know that’s what parents expect, and we suppose most of the teachers care about the kids. We’ve done our best, but with the economy so weak, with parents and teachers being incompetent, and with nobody but a few malcontents insisting that we actually teach the children, well, we’ve run out of options. This was a last resort. It isn’t something any of us want.”

The superintendent said if people want their children back in schools, they could always come up with more money. “Another billion might do it,” she mused, staring out the window at her new Mercedes, parked outside the door in two spaces so no one could dent a door. “It depends on many things.”

Meanwhile, an associate superintendent told the parent that perhaps some of the children could be allowed back in, on an interim basis, to carry the district’s “Vote For Our Levy, Damn You” signs, or to spray-paint “If You Aren’t a Kid-Hater, Vote for the Levy” on the side of houses. “The children also could open doors for us,” he offered helpfully, “wash the Mercedes, and serve tea.”

“I guess it was to be expected,” the parent said sheepishly as she left to buy paint and tea. “Phonics went away, then arithmetic. Then grammar. Then cursive writing. The kids were bound to be next.”

Amid speculation as to how these bills and decisions would affect children academically, one local know-it-all said it might actually be better for them to be taught at home. “They aren’t being properly taught in the schools, and the district’s failed approach seems abusive. Maybe parents and grandparents will teach them,” she said hopefully, to loud guffaws from the Education Mob.

“Don’t listen to her,” a legislator told the Mob. “She’s an idiot, and she didn’t donate to my campaign. The kids are fine. Well, ours are fine. OK, well, mine are fine. And that’s what matters.” The Mob and media nodded as one, knowing he wouldn’t say it if it weren’t true.

The math teacher, now fondly recalling his 6th margarita, was accidentally asked where education money goes. He said blearily, “We have no freaking idea. Everyone in the city is out for themselves. Nobody cares about the kids or the parents. Teachers are subbed out constantly to learn stupid things and to manage fund-raisers. The paper complains about excessive power, full disclosure and budget cuts, but they have the power, there are no budget cuts, and nobody but parents wants full disclosure."

The room quieted. The Mob/media blinked, wondering what to do. Someone began preparing a rope. An instructional coach jumped up, smiling thinly. “You’re drunk. Be quiet. You’re fired,” he said to the teacher. He turned back to the room and assumed a caring expression. “Budgets have been devastated,” he said. The Mob/media nodded. “Superintendents are crying, in their offices,” he said. The Mob/media tsk-tsked. “Poor things,” they murmured.

“It’s a budget tsunami out there,” the coach added, shedding a tear. “A budget lynching. It’s a civil rights issue.” The media listened investigatively. “I don’t have exact numbers with me, but listen. How will districts buy pencils, now, for the children? We do not want the children to not have pencils. And they’ll starve. Do we want the children to starve? No, we do not!” The Mob/media nodded obediently.

“Wrong!” the math teacher shouted, from his drunken purgatory. “Parents send in pencils, every September. They have to. They get a list. They also have to buy paper. And glue. And pens. And tissues. They bring in big bags of stuff. Nobody adds that to the costs of public schools, but it must be …”

“Damn it,” the coach snapped at the teacher. “You were fired. Why are you still here?” Turning to the room, the coach smiled earnestly. “It’s very simple. If we have the children, we can’t afford more coaches and principals, and we need the coaches and principals because parents and teachers are crappy. Everybody knows that. It’s a tough economy, and tough decisions have to be made.”

Behind him, the representative nodded sensitively. “I’m a businessman, and I know all about it. He’s right. They’re doing their best. It’s no one’s fault, although I do think it’s the kids’ fault.”

The Mob/media nodded, relieved to be hearing from a businessman.

“I get it,” a reporter said collaboratively. “Adults need other adults, and they all need car allowances, and the cars need gas, and gas is more expensive. No money left for pencils. Wow. Poor kids.”

“Poor kids,” the other media echoed, taking careful notes regarding each other.

“Are you all idiots?” the drunken voice asked, from his purgatory. “Parents have to do most of the academics. Long division, grammar, handwriting, phonics … They can’t get any of that in public schools. The problem is not money – it’s them,” he said, waving a middle finger at the bureaucracy. “What’s the country coming to when schools don’t have children?”

The drunken math teacher was led away and shot. Hearing the sound, the reporters moved uneasily in their seat, wondering how to respond. Taxpayer-funded doughnuts were quickly furnished for them –sugar-coated cakes with sprinkles. Everyone took two, daintily brushing sugar and sprinkles onto the taxpayer-funded carpet. Someone sighed happily; the rest hastened to follow suit.

A superintendent grinned, showing canines. “It’s such hard work to keep everyone happy,” she said. “Hard, hard work. It’s another challenge we face, on top of so many. But we care about you, and we’ll help you … in whichever way you want.” The reporters nodded, mouths full and faces sticky.

A school director stood up. He was smiling. Sober. Happy to be there. Not intending to be shot. “We can’t depend on the whims of voters,” he said confidently to the media, who so appreciate confidence. “Nothing is more important than the kiddoes. We care about them just that much.” He smiled at the reporters, and they smiled back. All were in alignment with themselves.

In an inspired use of his brand new Ed.D, the school director suggested taxing the second-to-top 1% of the population, the bottom 17%, the near-bottom 43%, and the upper middle 38% to pay for basic education, work for social justice, fight for revolution and take care of inequities. A parent raised a hand to ask about that last 1%, at the very top.

“What?” the Ed.D turned on him, eyes narrowed. “You want to ask a question? You aren’t anti-school or something, are you? Anti-kid? Anti-teacher? You aren’t a hater, I hope.”

The parent whimpered and lowered his hand.

“It’s about the kiddoes,” a superintendent cooed administratively. “Those little kids. Little tykes. So cute. They need us. They have so many challenges. We must all take responsibility. It isn’t like we enjoy making these tough decisions. It keeps us up at night. We suffer and sacrifice and feel awful about it. But we have no choice. We’ve cut to the bone. Go out now and tell the people. Then come back and we’ll give you a pat and a doughnut. Just remember. It’s all for the kids.”

The media nodded, wanting to be forceful but fed. “All for the kids,” they repeated.

Epilogue:

In 2014, children were allowed back into the schools. Parents who refused to put their kids in public schools faced a firing squad. (Most chose the public schools.) Grade 12 students were faced with daunting choices: Paint graffiti and serve tea; emigrate and start all over again; or apply to a college of education. (In a happy coincidence, legislators innovatively passed a Bill that tasked Colleges of Education with creating new Schools of Graffiti and Tea.)

During the first 2014 session, the legislature made truth illegal. The measure passed, nearly unanimously, or so they said. One lone representative dissented, scaring everyone. He was shot. The governor climbed over his body to sign the bill, her heels leaving small, dark holes in his forehead.

Hearing that the Truth Bill had passed, a superintendent said, “We aren’t changing anything. We’re just formalizing what we’re already doing. You won’t see any difference at all. It won’t cost you anything, and you won’t even know.”

The media nodded. “No difference,” they murmured. “No one will know.”


Please note: The information in this post is copyrighted. The proper citation is:
Rogers, L. (March 2012). “In long-expected move - legislators, school districts outlaw the children." Retrieved (date) from the Betrayed Web site: http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailing.blogspot.com/.

This article was reposted March 8, 2012, on Education News at: http://www.educationnews.org/k-12-schools/laurie-rogers-in-long-expected-move-wa-schools-outlaw-kids/

This article was reposted March 8, 2012, on Education Views at: http://educationviews.org/2012/03/08/in-long-expected-move-legislators-school-districts-outlaw-the-children/

A link for this article was posted March 9, 2012, on School Information System at: http://www.schoolinfosystem.org/archives/2012/03/in_long-expecte.php

Afraid of your child's math textbook? You should be

By Annie Keeghan


There may be a reason you can’t figure out some of those math problems in your son or daughter’s math text and it might have nothing at all to do with you. That math homework you're trying to help your child muddle through might include problems with no possible solution. It could be that key information or steps are missing, that the problem involves a concept your child hasn’t yet been introduced to, or that the math problem is structurally unsound for a host of other reasons.

I have worked for over 20 years in educational publishing as a product developer, writer, and editor of curriculum materials for grades K-8. I’ve worked directly for textbook publishers and supplemental publishers (supplemental being those books that are adjuncts to the text), start-ups and large publishing houses. I’ve attended countless sales meetings, product meetings, and planning sessions, seen and taken part in the inner workings of a successful textbook from inception to completion. Over the course of my career, I’ve had the privilege of working with publishers dedicated to producing the best materials possible. Because of them, I was able to produce several successful reading, math, and assessment programs and make a darn good living doing it.

Best of all, I was able to feel proud of those books to which my name was attached. But there are no longer many projects that allow such a feeling to take hold. Why? Because the “new normal” among too many publishers is a severe lack of oversight in the quality of curriculum being produced, and a frightening prevalence of apathy to do anything about it.

The root of problem begins with this key fact: There are only a small number of educational publishers left after rabid buyouts and mergers in the 90s, publishers that all vie for a piece of a four-billion dollar (forbes.com) pie. In recent years, math has become the subject du jour due to government initiatives and efforts to raise the rankings of U.S. students who lag behind in math compared to 30 other industrialized nations. With state and local budgets constrained to unprecedented levels, publishers must compete for fewer available dollars. As a result, many are rushing their products (especially in math) to market to before their competitors, product that in many instances is inherently, tragically flawed.

At one time, a writer in this industry could write a book and receive roughly 6% royalties on sales. The salesperson who sold the product, however, earned (and still does) a commission upwards of 17% on the same product. This sort of pay structure never made sense to me; without the product, there’d be nothing to sell, after all. But this disparity serves to illustrate the thinking that has been entrenched industry-wide for decades—that sales and marketing is more valuable than product.

Now, the balance between the budgets for marketing and product development is growing farther and farther apart, and exponentially so. Today, royalties are a thing of the past for most writers and work-for-hire is the norm. Sales staffs still receive their high commissions, but with today’s outsourcing, writers and editors are consistently offered less than 20% of what they used to make. As a result, the number of qualified writers and editors is diminishing, and those being contracted by developers and publishers often don’t have the necessary skills or experience to produce a text worthy of the publisher’s marketing claims.

Here’s how it works: Many publishers solicit developers, often on the Internet and from all over the world, looking for the best bid on a project. With competition this fierce, developers are forced to drastically lower their rates just to stay in business (and publishers exploit this fact). Let’s say a publisher hires a developer for a certain low-bid fee to produce seven supplemental math books for grades 3-8. The product specs call for each student book and teacher guide to have page counts of roughly 100 pages and 80 pages, respectively. The publisher wants these seven books ready for press in five weeks—over 1,400 pages. To put this in perspective, in the not too recent past at least six months would be allotted for a project of this size. But publishers customarily shrink their deadlines to get a jump on the competition, especially in today’s math market. Unreasonable turnaround times are part of the new normal, something that almost guarantees a lack of quality right out of the gate.

Of course, the developer could say no to this ridiculous timeline, but there are plenty of others who will say yes. So, the developer accepts the work and scrambles to put together a team of writers and editors who must have immediate availability, sheepishly offering them a take-it-or-leave-it rate, a mere pittance of what they could once demand. As is the case for the developer, for each writer or editor who declines, there are scores in the wings who will say yes just to survive. Those who do accept the inferior pay and grueling schedule often do so without the ability to review the product specs to know what they’re getting into. That’s because the specs are still being hashed out by the publisher and developer even as the project begins. And when product specs are “complete”, they are often vague, contradictory, and in need of extensive reworking since they were hastily put together by people juggling far too many projects already.

Given the five-week turnaround time, one book is often broken up among several different writers, a practice which assures a lack of consistency and structure throughout a single book. But I’m being picky. Midway through the writing, the developer realizes that even more writers are needed in order to meet the deadline. Sometimes, in the rush to complete the project, there is no time to discuss resumes and qualifications; there’s a schedule to keep and the developer’s bottom line is starting to dwindle. What often happens is that writers overstate their abilities and haven’t the first clue about state educational standards, Common Core State Standards, or those put out by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, a knowledge of which is essential to produce a worthy math book or text, a knowledge of which should be demanded by developers and publishers alike.

Educational publishing is a small world, and the pool of qualified writers and editors has always been comparatively small to that of mass market or trade publishing. Now with fewer of us willing to accept these conditions, that pool is drying up. Over the last few years I’ve stopped developing and writing educational books; there’s no longer any satisfaction in the work, no demand or appreciation for a product well crafted, no way to make a decent living or produce something that I feel proud to have my name attached to. The day I heard myself ask a publisher not to include my name or that of my company's in the credits of the book I’d consulted on (the final product was nothing like what was originally conceived), came the sad realization that my career as I'd known it was dying. I'd heard whisperings for years from other writers and editors working for other publishers about this “new normal,” but I didn’t understand until I saw with my own eyes what they’d been telling me. I finally understood all their frustration and angst, the conflicted feelings of weighing the need of a paycheck against principle, the feeling of trying to improve a product even if it meant bucking heads with those in charge, people who weren't going to appreciate the effort or compensate appropriately anyway.

So, like many of my fellow colleagues, I’ve taken a step back, chosen not to be a party to something so fundamentally backward. The only work I accept is copyediting, and only when the money is decent (which isn’t often) and when the developer is at least committed to producing curriculum of quality (which also isn’t often). Most of the work I’ve been offered in the past few years is in math, the subject du jour I spoke of. Copyediting, the work I generally do now, is the final stage of editing before the product goes to press, where only a check for grammar, punctuation and things of this nature should be required. Content editing is a whole other expertise, one that is done after the writing where the content editor reviews the writer’s work for accuracy, sense, and structure, and makes sure the material adheres to the product specs. When I’m hired to copyedit, the profound errors I see in content are often staggering enough that grammar and punctuation seem immaterial. Sometimes the content in the student materials is so poor—steps omitted, unclear directions, concepts introduced when they’re not developed till later in the text, distorted interpretations of math terms and applications —that it boggles the mind it got past a content editor. With so many errors rampant at this stage of editing, rewriting is hastily done and it’s only inevitable that some errors will show up in the final printed product. And with a different copyeditor on each book, there are those who don’t even think about, or have the experience to recognize, the content issues so they go unaddressed. For a rate of four dollars a page, most copyeditors will do only what they were hired to do—look for errors and in grammar and punctuation and move on. There's a mortgage due after all.

When I point out critical errors in content to a developer’s project manager, there’s generally a pause at the other end of the phone. I’m ruining their day, handing them a problem they don’t want, can’t possibly address given their resources and time. Some do their best; they’ll ask me to make corrections and bump up my rate a bit. Some will ask me to make notes so that they can fix the errors and do the rewrites themselves on their own time. Others will simply sigh, “The publisher knows it’s bad. Just do the best you can.” The publisher knows it’s bad. And yet, it doesn’t seem to matter. That’s because the sales and marketing team is already at work developing videos, brochures, webinars, catalog copy, and whatever else their bloated budgets will allow in order to sell what doesn’t actually exist—a quality product.

And speaking of the printed product, there’s one more step before we get there—production. These are the people who typeset the books and get them ready for press. India is a favored venue for some publishers because workers are available on three shifts and work fast, but mostly because the price is far cheaper than in the U.S. As editors, we often have to compensate for language barriers by color coding our instructions to the production staff or using simple language that is still frequently misunderstood, resulting in further unintended errors that often make it into the final product because there’s no time left in the schedule, no money left to pay someone, to do a final and thorough review in the manner it should be, and used to be, done.

You may be wondering by now where students fit into the grand plan of these practices. Let’s write and solve and equation to find out: Poorly-executed product (x) + a greater concentration of money spent on marketing to maximize profits (y) = nowhere, that’s where.

One must conclude that students and their education, if this is judged against product quality, is becoming an increasingly low priority. Not only don’t some publishers care, some have no problem expressing their lack of concern. Example: I received an email from a senior math executive of a well-established publisher responding to a concern I raised about the lack of correlations in a particular math series to the Common Core State Standards, correlations that were part of the product specs. The reason they were part of the product specs is because Common Core State Standards have been officially adopted by 43 states (ascd.org) and publishers are racing to make sure their products address them. This is how the senior executive answered my query: “It doesn’t matter if there aren’t enough correlations; our marketing materials say only that we ‘expose’ students to Common Core.”

Not only did this top-level “professional” have no problem stating this, she had no problem committing it to writing. Buyer beware: Read that marketing copy very carefully.

One math series out there is from a well-known textbook publisher incorporating the success of a particular math approach in another country (that’s a hint) into their textbooks. A while back, a group of us was hired to edit and adapt the product for the English-speaking market since it was written overseas. Not much time passed before it was clear that what the product required was not editing but extensive rewriting. One math exercise in a chapter I was assigned called for students to use a math formula to calculate their level of attractiveness, using a mathematical ratio of 1:1.618 (otherwise known as phi or divine proportion), a formula scientists have devised to set standards of beauty. Math can be tough enough for some kids without having to learn that, on top of struggling to apply math formulas to their face, they are also inherently unattractive. Talk about installing math phobia! No publisher in their right mind would allow such a problem to slip into their math books, but what does it say about the hiring practices of publishers and their developers when a writer who believes that such an exercise is appropriate gets a contract? The project was scrapped, but only temporarily. The publisher felt the writers just needed more time to clean up their work. Yeah, that’s all they needed. Meanwhile, the marketing for the product was already developed, prominent on the web and in mass media. And customers likely believed it because of the publisher’s reputation.

A more recent math project I was hired to edit was not only full of content errors, the books were so peculiar in the execution of math concepts and instruction that I hadn’t seen anything like it in all my 20+ years of experience. I asked the project manager if she’d ever seen math approached in this manner. She gave a resigned groan and said no, but this was what the publisher wanted. The books in question were a series of supplemental products designed for struggling students, which is sadly ironic because students of all abilities will indeed struggle to complete the lessons in these books. How could this happen, you might ask? Well, the books were published by a company that was reorganized a few years ago in order to boost profits. That’s when the bulk of the product development staff was let go and the budget for their department slashed. Meanwhile, the marketing and sales departments swelled, as did their budgets. And though many of those in charge now have lofty MBAs, few have little, if any, experience in publishing of any kind, never taught in a classroom, and haven’t the first clue of how to build a coherent educational book from start to finish. The lust for the bottom line—that is how this happens.

At the end of this project, the same project manager mused to me aloud, “I want to know who buys this crap.” Crap. That was the word she used after all her exhausting efforts trying to make a silk purse out of this pig’s ear. My reply to her was, “I want to know who buys it twice.” Because that’s the only way educational publishers make money, on repeat sales. Those books are out there now in print, on the shelves in the publisher’s warehouse, being packed and shipped to a school near you. So who are you people who choose to buy these books? Identify yourselves. Because you, too, a part of the problem.

Don’t get me wrong; they are many responsible educational publishers out there, publishers who are careful to hire teachers or those with a background in education and publishing to produce their materials. But they are becoming the minority. Teachers, curriculum specialists, parents, home schoolers, and anyone interested in the education of this generation of children need to beware. There are those who are capitalizing on established reputations to produce low-budget, low-quality materials with a high-concentration on disingenuous marketing all in the name of priority one—profit. Meanwhile, the people qualified to develop and write sound educational products are leaving the industry in droves to pursue more profitable careers at Wendy’s and Wal-Mart.

And so, I say to parents: Take a good look at the materials your children are bringing home. And to educators: Look at what you’re purchasing. Don’t be satisfied with the classic “thumb through” and don’t take those marketing materials or the sales pitch at face value. Take the time to study the materials; match them to your state’s desired standards and preferred benchmarks. If they’re not a good fit, take a pass and develop your own if you must. The only way kids are going to become better educated through the materials you buy, to increase their rankings among those 30 other countries, is to break the cycle and stop buying those books that are—there’s no other way to put it—crap.


Annie Keeghan is an editor, educational consultant, and a "writer with a novel looking for a good home." If you would like to contact her, please write to Laurie Rogers at wlroge@comcast.net, and I will forward your message to her. Her article is reprinted here with her permission. It was previously published Feb. 17, 2012 at Open Salon.


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 about 1,000 words, give or take a few. 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.

Math education: Arguing over false choices

By Dr. Joseph Ganem, professor of physics, Loyola University

"The astronomer may speak to you of his understanding of space, but he cannot give you his understanding.The musician may sing to you of the rhythm which is in all space, but he cannot give you the ear which arrests the rhythm nor the voice that echoes it. And he who is versed in the science of numbers can tell of the regions of weight and measure, but he cannot conduct you thither. For the vision of one man lends not its wings to another man."----Khalil Gibran, "On Teaching," The Prophet

Imagine a football coach who does not spend practices drilling his team and running plays. Instead, players watch videos of football games, analyze and diagram the actions, discuss the reasons that some plays work and others don't, and plan strategies for upcoming games. His reason for this approach is that drill work is tedious, repetitive, and exhausting. Players will enjoy practice much more if they can study the underlying strategies and concepts of football, have engaging discussions, and learn to think like a professional football player.

We would call such a coach delusional, not because of what he is doing, but because of what he is not doing. Obviously everything he is doing needs to be done, but his team will not stand a chance on an actual football field without putting in hours of tedious, repetitive, and exhausting drill work.

For an activity that has a kinesthetic component it is immediately obvious that learning it will only be possible through repetitive drill work. No one would entertain the notion that they could learn to play tennis by watching the Wimbledon tournament on television, learn to play piano by attending a concert at Carnegie Hall, or learn to dance by going to a performance of the New York City ballet. But, if the activity lacks a kinesthetic component somehow, what should still be obvious no longer is.

Consider the debates on math education that have run on for decades. Should students be taught standard algorithms for operations such as multiplication and division and focus on getting correct answers, or should students be taught conceptual thinking and focus on discovering mathematical knowledge on their own? Educators have argued both sides of  this issue, but in reality it is a false choice.

Without a conceptual understanding of math the subject is of little use. Applying math to real-world problems and knowing if the results of a mathematical analysis make sense requires an understanding of the concepts. But, it is not possible to have a conceptual understanding without with the extensive practice, memorization, and drill work needed to achieve computational fluency.

I tell my students that expertise in any subject, math or otherwise, has three components - facts, skills, and understanding. Each of these components is learned in a different way. Facts are static and must be memorized. Skills are actions that must be practiced in order to become proficient. Understanding evolves and comes only through experience and reflection.

This way in which I think about learning is different than the widely influential Bloom's taxonomy. Bloom saw learning as a hierarchical process, while I see it as an iterative process. Bloom saw separate learning domains - cognitive, affective, and psychomotor - that each had their own hierarchy, while I see the iterative learning process as being much the same in each of the different learning domains.

In Bloom's taxonomy, first published in 1956, the hierarchy in the cognitive domain from the bottom up is: knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. In this model of learning, comprehension (or understanding in updated terminology) is necessary before students can actually do something with their new knowledge. Hence many educational reform movements in the decades following the taxonomy have emphasized "conceptual" learning over practice. However, I disagree with the idea that a conceptual understanding is necessary before higher order activities, such as application, analysis, and synthesis can take place, because understanding is an ongoing process.

Chess as Example

For example, consider learning chess. It is an activity without a kinesthetic component hence it would fall under Bloom's cognitive domain of learning. But no one would believe that the game could be mastered without practice, or that novice players could discover the principles of strong play on their own.

To learn chess an aspiring player must memorize the names and movements of the pieces, and the object and rules of the game. These are what I refer to as facts. But the acquisition of skill in playing the game requires a program of study and practice. In order to improve, players must read texts on chess tactics and strategies and attempt to implement those ideas by playing actual games. There is no substitute for practice, but at the same time players must learn additional facts (acquire more knowledge).

However, an understanding of chess evolves in time. A novice, a skilled player, and a grandmaster can all look at the same chess position. The novice will see individual pieces. The skilled player will see groups of pieces. The grandmaster will see the entire position.

But if the grandmaster articulated his understanding of the entire position to the novice, the narrative would be of limited use. The novice would not have the knowledge base and the skills necessary to make sense of most of what a grandmaster would say about a given chess position. But that does not mean that the novice is incapable of applying, analyzing and synthesizing chess ideas. Those ideas might be relatively crude, and obvious to the grandmaster, but the process is necessary to reach a high level of understanding. It is for these reasons that I view learning as an iterative process.

Expertise

Experts are experts because they do think about their subject of expertise differently than novices. But those thought processes cannot be transferred directly to a student, they must develop through study and practice, and there is no shortcut to that development. This should be especially obvious in a subject such as math but apparently it is not.

Many years ago, before calculators and optical scanners had been invented, I made a purchase at a bakery counter tended to by a young woman who had to pencil in prices on the bags of pastries being sold. I asked for 5 donuts priced at 26 cents each. She placed them in a paper bag and on the outside of the bag she computed 26 x 5 using the standard algorithm for multiplication that I, and countless other students, had learned in grade school. She of course was very proficient at multiplication problems using this method, because throughout the day, everyday, a steady stream of customers patronized the bakery counter.

Before she could write out the problem, I said to her: "It's $1.30." She completed the problem, writing all the steps on the bag, and the result was $1.30. Startled by my seeming clairvoyance, she looked at me for an explanation. She knew of no other way to multiply but the standard algorithm, and that process required time and writing. How could I multiply the numbers instantly in my head and arrive at the correct answer?

I said to her: "If the donuts were 20 cents each how much would 5 cost?"
She replied:" A dollar."
I said: "And what is 5 times 6?"
She understood immediately what I had done, but only because she was already proficient at multiplication. If I tried to teach my methods for doing mental math to people not already proficient in the use of standard algorithms, my explanations would lead to confusion rather than enlightenment.

Real learning is iterative, not hierarchical, and it doesn't matter whether the subject is, to use Bloom's terminology, in the cognitive, affective, or psychomotor, learning domains. However, the desire of educators to systematize learning often leads to rigid ideologies riddled with false choices. The argument over whether math instruction should focus on concepts or computation is in many ways analogous to the argument on whether reading instruction should focus on phonics or whole language. Fluent readers use and understand both approaches.

Likewise, learning math is an iterative process that cycles between concepts and computation. Experts in math are proficient in both because it is impossible to master one without the other.

###

Joseph Ganem, Ph.D., is a professor of physics at Loyola University Maryland, and author of the award-winning book on personal finance: The Two Headed Quarter: How to See Through Deceptive Numbers and Save Money on Everything You Buy. It shows how numbers fool consumers when they make financial decisions. For more information on this award-winning book, visit TheTwoHeadedQuarter.com. His article is reprinted here with permission of Dr. Ganem. This article was previously published on The Daily Riff.


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 about 1,000 words, give or take a few. 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.