\doc\web\97\09\edloop.txt Date sent: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 05:03:26 -0500 From: KEISIOUX <75713.1375@compuserve.com> Subject: Authentic Assessment = Scavenger Hunt, Song competition??????? W Abstract/Punch line: education prof coerces students into not just using but promoting intrusive assessments; and new teaching methods, even if not themselves ideological, have ideological agenda of replacing old politically-unscreened teachers/texts with politically-correct ones. preface - as typical, I haven't read your email all the way thru due to lack of time; but I'll comment on the general point anyway. (To everyone except Arthur: he posted an article about "authentic assessment" a/k/a "alternative assessment", a trendy thing in education. SPU is Seattle Pacific Univ, a CHristian college whose education dept has been infiltrated by militantly liberal profs [some of which is being rectified]. So, FRC and Eagle Forum please FW this to your education staff (FRC: Jennifer Marshall, not sure at Eagle but your St Louis office.) (Clarifying note: since we're talking about teacher education, I'll use the word "pupil" to refer to children in K-12 schools and the word "student" to refer to those enrolled in the teacher-ed program.) SPU's teacher-ed program includes one class on authentic/alternative assessment. Apparently there are two types of portfolios: one is a set of the pupil's work compiled by the pupil and the teacher, made available only to them and the parents and nobody else unless the pupil (or presumably parent) approves or initiates. This supplements a regular report card or regular grading. I'm not sure if this type of prtfolio (for purposes of this email, I'll call this a Type 1) was mentioned in the SPU class; I learned about it from friends who teach in LA and possibly from some articles this class's prof xeroxed from professional ed journals. The other type of portfolio (I'll call Type 2) is basically a dossier or FBI file on the pupil, compiled without the full knowledge or cooperation of the pupil or of his parent. Typically the pupil is asked personal info about himself and his family - either directly or under the guise of "make a family album". The SPU prof handed out a list of things to seek from the pupil, ranging from the trivial like what's your toothpaste preference, to the very intrusive like what does your family do on weekends, what do your parents read or what TV shows do they watch. (Sandy Vanderberg, a former 45th Dist PCO and education activist, reported that somewhere on the east coast anotehr program asked for parents' signatures and social security numbers, place of employment, name/location/photo of church, mom's maiden name, grandparents' names, etc; and that all were electronically archived by the school district at their HQ.) The prof handed out copies of articles from professional ed journals advocating the efficacy of a benign type of portfolio (possibly my Type 1 or something in that ballpark). (Unlike hard science articles where you can't just print a hypothesis but have to have experimental data with controls, the articles I saw basically said "well I think this oughta work") The class was then supposed to think that the case for Type 2 portfolios had been made, and then had to support Type 2s. The prof gave her students some assignments. One was to write a paper supporting portfolios (no options was given for those who disagreed). Another, assuming that all students were doing classroom observation at some local public school, was to compile a Type 2 portfolio on a pupil. This involved at one point surreptitiously xeroxing a pupil's health record document. A third assignment was to assume that the student had graduated and was an operational teacher; write a letter to your pupils' parents explaining why portfolios are good and why you are using them in your class. My concern about this assignment is that this obviously-activist/partisan prof would take these letters that are supposedly hypothetical and use them operationally, either sending them to actual parents of actual pupils in actual classes (or their teachers), or using them within the education system as anecdotal evidence of the efficacy or popularity of portfolios. I suggested that the student address the assignments to a specific named hypothetical pupil or parent, as a mild obstacle to such misuse of the assignments; the student declined for fear of crossing the prof. The prof thus gains potential free labor for her cause, and potentially forces students to materially assist a cause they may disagree with. [Another characteristic of the SPU program: a student's progress is dependent on the subjective judgments of key profs, most of whom have ideological axes to grind; thus the profs have intimidated and gained complete control over students, who cannot disagree with or blow the whistle on the profs. I thought SPU stood for Stalinist Politically-correct Univ.] One specific point of deceptive practice: the prof had a name for her theory ("Learning Theory"? "Learning Research"?) that was carefully wordsmithed to fool the casual reader into thinking the writer was referring to the consensus of the current body of experimentally-verified scientific knowledge, when in actuality the writer was referring to the prof's untested pet beliefs/agenda. This name was to be used in the assignments, the result looking something like "the latest research proves that portfolios are good" but actually saying only "I think portfolios are good". Enough on this prof, on to a broader point: what do these and other teaching methods have to do with ideological control or imposition of orthodoxy (which I believe is now the real goal of modern public education)? By touting new methods and theories, the educrats can force the abandonment of old curricula, teachers, etc that may have not been ideologically screened/packed by the educrats, and new ones must be brought in; and these new ones have been ideologically engineered by the educrats (even in "academic basics" like reading and math - the stories and problems and examples will push some liberal point but not non-liberal views). They want to make sure no part of education is beyond their control (that's also why they oppose programs like Teach For America, homeschooling, vouchers, private schools, etc). Date sent: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 18:48:06 -0500 To: "Arthur Hu" From: Fred Battey Subject: Re: Indiana, Circumference and weight for K'ers??? At 03:32 AM 10/31/97 -0800, you wrote: >Why is it that everybody wants these ridiculously hard tests that >don't mesure what the kids are being taught that fail everybody? [I think it's because we kind of have the cart and the horse out of order. First of all the kids aren't being taught that much, witness your commentary below. We need hard tests, but we also need challenging curriculum to go with them. From what I've seen in NY state the state commissioner is trying to force schools to improve by forcing in hard tests. Unfortunately I think this is part of a longer-term scheme. When students start failing the tests in wholesale lots and parents start complaining, I believe they plan on bringing the tests back down to the students level; notice that I didn't say anything about the curriculum getting better or phasing out of OBE style education. We will end up with status quo or worse]. >BTW, my kindergartener son brought home his "homework". It >asks him to estimate the weight of a pumpkin in pounds and >the circumference in inches, and then to actually measure it (like >most houses have scales than will measure 1-2 pounds). > >I don't know of any 6 yr old kids who could be expected to read >the directions and do this without a parent bascially taking out >15 minues to actually do it for him. > >I also recall they assessed him for skills he was supposed to >be able to know, my wife came back from the conference with >the shocking new that he wasn't able to recite his full phone >number, address and zip code. > >Sheezes man, what the heck is going on with these freaking >"higher standards?????" [They don't exist in the minds or orientation of the educators.] From WA legislation on the web: (6) "Performance-based education system" means an education system in which a significantly greater emphasis is placed on how well students are learning, and significantly less emphasis is placed on state-level laws and rules that dictate how instruction is to be provided. The performance-based education system does not require that schools use an outcome-based instructional model. Decisions regarding how instruction is provided are to be made, to the greatest extent possible, by schools and school districts, not by the state. http://cisl.ospi.wednet.edu/CISL/Legislative/All1209OLD.html PART II: COMMISSION ON STUDENT LEARNING NEW SECTION. Sec. 201. A new section is added to chapter 28A.630 RCW to read as follows: Unless the context clearly requires otherwise, the definitions in this section apply throughout RCW 28A.630.885 and 28A.300.130. (l) "Commission" means the commission on student learning created in RCW 28A.630.885. (2) "Student learning goals" mean the goals established in RCW 28A.150.210. (3) "Essential academic learning requirements" means more specific academic and technical skills and knowledge, based on the student learning goals, as determined under RCW 28A.630.885(3)(a). Essential academic learning requirements shall not limit the instructional strategies used by schools or school districts or require the use of specific curriculum. (4) "Performance standards" or "standards" means the criteria used to determine if a student has successfully learned the specific knowledge or skill being assessed as determined under RCW 28A.630.885(3)(b). The standards should be set at internationally competitive levels. (5) "Assessment system" or "student assessment system" means a series of assessments used to determine if students have successfully learned the essential academic learning requirements. The assessment system shall be developed under RCW 28A.630.885(3)(b). (6) "Performance-based education system" means an education system in which a significantly greater emphasis is placed on how well students are learning, and significantly less emphasis is placed on state-level laws and rules that dictate how instruction is to be provided. The performance-based education system does not require that schools use an outcome-based instructional model. Decisions regarding how instruction is provided are to be made, to the greatest extent possible, by schools and school districts, not by the state. Where I am coming from are these wacky new assessments that are obviously way beyond grade level (even the NEAP math guidelines say some of the stuff on the WA test should NOT be assessed at the 4th grade level) Both conservatives and reformers are claiming the "higher standards ground", I think we should call the error on the part of the reformers who simply use too-hard math tests to instill shock to justify NCTM standards and such. Reform opponents should recognize that there is such a thing as "high enough", and not let reformers get away with the scam of "low" test scores when norm-referenced tests put most states at about average, but the new tests say that 80% of students are "below expectations". Many of these test questions are simply difficult brain teasers which do not really assess whether the kids have learned what they should know in math. It is interesting that I finally got around to the 7th grade washington examples, by comparison, they are much easier than the 4th grade questions, on both relative to grade level, and absolute. I think we're missing the boat on both trying to claim "higher standards" when the other side is using "higher order thinking" and "real life" to define what "higher standards" means instead of simply mastery of the basics, which they're ditching in place of the new stuff by saying "skills aren't as important as how they learn" and garbage like that. > To: "Arthur Hu" > From: Fred Battey > Subject: Re: Not Colorado too?!! Brace for "low" test scores? > At 03:32 AM 10/31/97 -0800, you wrote: > >My point is that any expection that flunks any approximation of > >everybody is just too tough. What's wrong with the concept that > >4th graders just don't read very well? If a state can get their > >kids to perform at an 80th percentile level, that's great, but it > >should NOT be used to say students are performing below > >grade level. Perhaps educators should realilze just where > >realistic expectations are, and then go up from there. This notion > >that you have to show improvement or else, and do whatever it > >takes to convince everybody that the world is going to hell > >in a handbasket, is nuts. > > Arthur, I'm not sure where you are coming from or where you are going. > Let's look at the facts, or at least as I see them, as a means of reaching > a starting point: > > - American students are academically performing poorly in relation to > other major nations, and many third world nations. Based on money spent > and available resources, we should be at the top of the pack. > > - Based on assessment, even with "adjustment", over the past decades there > has been a declining performance. Now you can challenge the assessment > methodology but at least it is a relatively objective measure. It is also > substantiated by performance inadequacies of students in the workplace. > > We can't base the need to improve on "realistic expectations" of today's > students; i.e. adjust (dumb down?) the expectations based on their > inadequacies. We must establish programs to fix current students > inadequacies, correct the system that created those inadequacies and create > an educational system that will not do this again to our children. We must > assess appropriately each of these things to make sure we are indeed > correcting the problem. Sounds easy, but it is enormously difficult, > especially when faced with a current educational bureaucracy/government > that refuses to acknowledge that they are on the wrong track. > > I don't see anything wrong with saying students are performing below their > grade level, if the grade level has been appropriately determined, as grade > level should be in a way a goal. If all students are below grade level > then that says the educational system is not doing its job. > > Fred > This was great! I don't get it, if there's so much research out there that says this whole reform movement is a pile of hooey, why is the entire educational establishment betting the farm and our kids on it??? This whole thing sounds like the logical (or illogical) application of affirmative action thinking to K12 - completely dismiss everything we know about merit and why some kids end up on top, and come up wit a model that does't require students to engage in "unnatural" activities like studying and drilling on paper. > To: DaveTNCLE@aol.com, arthurhu@mail1.halcyon.com > From: "J. E. Stone" > Subject: Re: NCTM Standards and "Need" for reform > http://olam.ed.asu.edu/epaa/v4n8.html > Abstract Despite continuing criticism of public education, experimentally demonstrated and field tested teaching methods have been ignored, rejected, and abandoned. Instead of a stable consensus regarding best teaching practices, there seems only an unending succession of innovations. A longstanding educational doctrine appears to underlie this anomalous state of affairs. Termed developmentalism, it presumes "natural" ontogenesis to be optimal and it requires experimentally demonstrated teaching practices to overcome a presumption that they interfere with an optimal developmental trajector its most recent expressions include "developmentally appropriate practice" and "constructivism." In the years during which it gained ascendance, developmentalism served as a basis for rejecting harsh and inhumane teaching methods. Today it impedes efforts to hold schools accountable for student academic achievement. Despite these mounting concerns, schools have largely ignored the availability of a number of teaching methodologies that seem capable of producing the kind of achievement outcomes demanded by the public. They are experimentally validated, field tested, and known to produce significant improvements in learning. Instead, the schools have continued to employ a wide variety of untested and unproven practices which are said to be "innovative" (Carnine, 1995; Marshall, 1993). In particular, teaching practices such as mastery learning and Personalized System of Instruction (Bloom, 1976; Guskey & Pigott, 1988; Kulik, Kulik & Bangert-Drowns, 1990), direct instruction (Becker & Carnine, 1980; White, 1987), positive reinforcement (Lysakowski & Walberg; 1980, 1981), cues and feedback (Lysakowski & Walberg, 1982), and the variety of similar practices called "explicit teaching" (Rosenshine, 1986), are largely ignored despite reviews and meta- analyses strongly supportive of their effectiveness (Ellson, 1986; Walberg, 1990, 1992). Yet methodologies such as whole language instruction (Stahl & Miller, 1989), the open classroom (Giacomia & Hedges, 1982; Hetzel, Rasher, Butcher, & Walberg, 1980; Madamba, 1981; & Peterson, 1980), inquiry learning (El- Nemr, 1980), and a variety practices purporting to accommodate teaching to student diversity (Boykin, 1986; Dunn, Beaudrey, & Klavas, 1989; Shipman & Shipman, 1985; Thompson, Entwisle, Alexander, & Sundius, 1992) continue to be employed despite weak or unfavorable findings or simply a lack of empirical trials. I also need to point out that the US is #1 in math in the 4th grade. The only group that outperforms middle class white America is Asian America, and developed Asia, and it's a result of this mindless drill and kill the NTCM says is so "harmful". What do all you folks make of this irony, that we all want to catch up with the Asians, but we're running away 180 degress from what the Asians do to get ahead? Have any of you seen these afterschool classes that Chinese parents send their kids to? You haven't seen paper on pencil worksheets until you've seen these places. You might be able to criticize the Asians for having too much rote work, but it's the reason Asian averages are so high, not this "natural learning" crap Americans like so much. > To: "Arthur Hu" > From: Fred Battey > > - American students are academically performing poorly in relation to > other major nations, and many third world nations. Based on money spent > and available resources, we should be at the top of the pack. > > See? What did I tell you. The new"state standards" are deliberately set way ahead of everybody's idea of where grade level is. So if I can prove that the WA test is way the hell above 4th grade level, Bergeson and friends just say "well, the community said that this is where they want to put grade level". No wonder everybody flunks out relative to these new "higher standards". You don't need a new grade level, just master the grade level content they already have. What's wrong with that? We sent 7 kids to MIT and Stanford with the same grade level content as everybody else, except we got 99% right when everybody else was happy with 60%. \clip\97\25\edclip7.txt 11/3/97 Orange County Register Schools chief makes her pick for statewide test EDUCATION: The superintendent chooses Terra Nova `with reluctance,' saying all the choices were`seriously flawed.' By DENNIS LOVE The Orange County Register Eastin was required to make her recommendation to the State Board of Education under a new state law that requires that all California public schools use a single standardized test to measure the academic achievement levels of each student in grades 2- 11 by May 15. Eastin said she made her recommendation ``with reluctance'' because all three tests submitted for her consideration ``are seriously flawed, with the level of test content falling years below grade-level expectations.'' From: bernie@binghamton.edu Date sent: Sat, 1 Nov 1997 15:16:49 -0500 (EST) To: Arthur Hu Subject: Re: Joe Esposito STW page I referred to my piece entitled "Education Reform's Second Five-Year Plan, 1995-2000" which I published in a publication founded by Sidney Hook, "Measure," in 1995. It also appeared elsewhere. Bernie (see the esteem page) > It is universally accepted that traditional tests don't and performance based tests do test for higher order thinking, but this is simply not the case... @@Higher Order Thinking Proponents of alternative tests say that multiple choice tests do not test "higher order" thinking, and do not resemble "authentic" real-world tasks, which are not multiple choice. Defenders of traditional tests point out that tests like the SAT are rarely just recall of simple facts, but usually involve several higher order skills TRADITIONAL TESTS DO REQUIRE MENTAL PROCESSING, NOT JUST FACTS RECALL 60% of the items of a Norm Referenced Test (according to the publisher) require mental processing -- skills in logic, synthesis, analysis, etc. It is simply not true, as mot test bashers claim, that multiple choice tests consist mainly of items that ask for the recall of facts. p. 27 "Using and Interpreting Tennesse's Value Added Assessment System: A Primer for Teachers and Principals" Samuel E Bratton et al. The University of Tennesee R11-0435-02-002-97 TRADITIONAL TESTS CAN TEST HOT, NEW TESTS MIGHT NOT http://olam.ed.asu.edu/epaa/v3n6.html (local) \clip\97\25\edasses.htm (4) "Educational Assessment Reassessed: The Usefulness of Standardized and Alternative Measures of Student Achievement as Indicators for the Assessment of Educational Outcomes," Educational Policy Analysis Archives, Vol 3 No 6, March 3, 1995 (available at website: http://olam.ed.asu.edu/epaa) The notion that multiple choice tests can tap only recall is a myth. In fact, the best multiple choice items can--and do--measure students' ability to analyze, synthesize information, make comparisons, draw inferences, and evaluate ideas, products, or performances. (p. 67) Feinberg points out that "the most widely known multiple-choice exam, the Scholastic Aptitude Test, tests very little knowledge; it is almost completely a test of analytical and reasoning ability at quite complex and sophisticated levels" and that "many other standardized tests, particularly at the high school level, also probe the ability to draw fair inferences and reach tenable conclusions." (p. 16). I just got your packet on the TVAAS Tennesee Value Added test system. I had assumed this was another goofball peformance based test, but it looks like this crew has done an excellent job of saying "no thanks, this is nuts" to "alternative assessments", Looks like they added the value added system to a traditional norm-refererenced test, and he has done an excellent job of pointing out that 1) alternative assessments are much more expensive 2) they are much less reliable 3) they are not suitable for large scale assessment 4) they come up with exactly the same rankings as norm-referenced tests 5) norm referenced tests also test for higher order thinking 6) race gaps are even larger for performance based tests among other things. I didn't realize this link came from the TVAAS crew ALTERNATIVE TESTS ARE MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE http://olam.ed.asu.edu/epaa/v3n6.html (local) \clip\97\25\edasses.htm (4) "Educational Assessment Reassessed: The Usefulness of Standardized and Alternative Measures of Student Achievement as Indicators for the Assessment of Educational Outcomes," Educational Policy Analysis Archives, Vol 3 No 6, March 3, 1995 (available at website: http://olam.ed.asu.edu/epaa) It's the best summary of what's wrong with these tests, it amounts to what I was able to figure out on my own with the CLAS test. Everybody should add a link to this under their "authentic assesment" section. > From: DaveTNCLE@aol.com > To: arthurhu@mail1.halcyon.com, education-consumers@tricon.net, > jimmyk@tenet.edu > Subject: Re: EQUAL TO NATIONAL AVERAGE=GOOD, BUT FAILING STATE STAND > > Date sent: Sat, 01 Nov 1997 08:54:25 -0500 To: tjfell@ix.netcom.com From: TFRC (by way of Fred Battey ) Subject: Re: I need a brief discussion of OBE/Goals 2000 Goals 2000 Goals 2000 offered millions of dollars to states as an incentive to get the states to write or rewrite state curriculum standards and provide children and families access to social and health services. In effect it was a scheme to get states to agree with a pre-planned agenda. The National Center on Education and the Economy has boasted of its influence in getting Congress to pass legislation. This Center, whose board members have included Hillary Clinton and Ira Magaziner, conned a number of states into paying millions of dollars in membership fees for the privilege of helping developing national standards. At the same time the Center offerred its services to help them develop their state standards. The Goals 2000, the School-to-Work and the National Skills Standard Act are federal legislative frameworks designed to radically change the purpose of schools from education to job training and one-stop shopping centers of health and social services. The scheme includes a life-long tracking system, certification of knowledge and skills, etc. In effect, it will change the way teachers teach, the way students learn and what they learn, how they're graded, and they students graduate, enter college or the military and get a job. In fact, teachers won't teach, they'll facilitate. Students will become self-directed learned who construct knowledge for themselves. They won't be graded, they'll be "assessed," including group assessment. Certification of skills will be as important as a diploma (that will become obsolete if the reformers have their way about it). It's much more complex, but you asked for "simple." Imagine a large box of puzzle pieces. You don't have the box lid, so you don't know what the puzzle is supposed to look at. You only see the jumble of pieces. If you could see the assembled puzzle, you'd see the government- created village that Hillary wants to build. I call it Tucker-topia after Marc Tucker, the "Center's" president. Date sent: Sat, 1 Nov 1997 02:03:43 -0800 Send reply to: From: " McNee" To: "ECC" Copies to: Re Colorado etc., I started to take an interest in reading tests in1975. I am not a statistician, but have seen results for individuals, schools, county (local education authority), and gradually realised what norm-referenced, criterion-ref. meant, and how norm-referenced meant squashed into a Procrustes bed of the bell curve of "normal distribution". Whether all the examples tested had been morons or geniuses, they would still have been sorted into this same curve, half above average and half below. When I say that nearly all children can be above average, this is then used against me, hinting that I do not understand the statistics. But today's average (in Britain, anyway) has been far below potential since WW II - 50 years; in our schools we never really recovered from the upset of the war, because look-say came in from 1945, when everyone was looking for a brave NEW world and expectations had taken a bashing from the war. From then on enthusiasm, then ideology, took over from experience of what worked, tests and proper trialling. Testing WAS done - showing up appalling results, 25% then 40% of children "had not even made a start in reading at 7+" but somehow nobody rioted. It is exactly the same today. Jeni Riley, head of primary education at the prestigious Institute of Education, London, wrote a book "The Teaching of Reading" Oct.1996 (ISBN 1-85396 307 0) studying the work of 4 teachers (of an original 32), who "had been chosen by LEA advisers and head teachers on the premise that they were effective." At the beginning of the year the pupils on average knew 10 letters and at the end of the year knew 15 - a far cry from "Learn a letter a day" ! Yet the results for two of the 4 classes were judged better than could be expected! What pathetic expectations! (See the issue of the Journal of Research in Reading just out, Vol.20 No.3 Oct.97), the first article by J.Chew exposing the flawed assumptions on which the "new phonics" (phonological awareness, onset-rime, which is NOT phonemic awareness) is based. One popular assumption is that it is natural for children to start with a logographic stage (whole word), but this is only because teachers have forced children to start with whole words, a sight vocabulary, and have stopped trying to start them on letters/sounds. The teaching did it, then it was declared natural. I offer the informed opinion that when we get initial reading right (phonics first and fast, from 4th birthday), not only will this push nearly all the failures of today above the national average of today, but everyone will benefit. Those now doing well will do better; they will all improve their spelling, and the whole bell-curve will move to the right (up) about one "standard deviation". After First Grade, the whole of education will then be able to function at a higher level, and there will not be the "wide range of ability" that is now so oft-quoted. And it seems to be the same the world over. Mona, England EDUCATION CONSUMERS CLEARINGHOUSE From: "James Boyes" To: "Arthur Hu" Subject: Re: Appreciation and Encouragement to Keep Digging Date sent: Sat, 1 Nov 1997 00:09:31 -0800 Arthur, I am honored that you would consider me for such a visit. However, I'm fairly certain the problem with our public education system reaches beyond the state's SPI. As you are beginning to discover, there is ample evidence that what we are dealing with is a powerfully influential worldview which has its origins deeply entrenched in statism (your reference to "1984," etc). This is no conspiracy, this is no passing fad. No, Arthur, what we have here is the piecemeal implementation of socialism which is ideological in nature. And this gradual inclination toward a planned economy via a planned education system has been in the works for quite some time, since at least the mid 1800s. Grand conspiracies require a tremendous amount of collusion and higher degrees of intellect than is evidenced within the American education establishment. No, these folks are too busy using their lecturns and chalkboards for the purpose of ideological advocacy and promoting a belief system at odds with America's mainstream. But if your goal is statism, you must possess the minds of the young, and keep them captivated; I call it "cerebral management." We use to call it "brain washing." Whatever, the result is the same: a compliant, passive, and politically-igornant populace. Now, the question of the day: What form of governance desires the passively dumb population group I just described? My Appreciation and Respect, Jim Boyes jmboyes@whidbey.net ======================================= -----Original Message----- From: Arthur Hu To: James Boyes Date: Thursday, October 30, 1997 1:43 PM Subject: Re: Appreciation and Encouragement to Keep Digging Thanks! Can I get your contact info in case I figure out how to take a war party to talk with bergeson? Would be interested? From: "James Boyes" To: "Arthur Hu" Subject: Appreciation and Encouragement to Keep Digging Arthur, First, I'd like to express my appreciation for your efforts to explore and share your findings in regards to recent education reform assessments. It must be very frustrating to make sense of the obvious departure from logic and reason you have encountered thus far. However, if more parents and citizens viewed education with your seriousness, there's little doubt the pervasive intellectual decline and apathy would not be as abrupt as we are only beginning to discover. I encourage you to dig and excavate this issue until you locate, properly identify, and completely comprehend the philosophical foundation which sustains the American education establishment. Once this task is accomplished one can discern the "big picture" and the spurs which drive this bureaucratic monopoly. So few people are willing to look below the surface; instead, they get swamped by a variety of symptoms (issues indicative of a much deeper problem). And, until this defective "root" is discovered and identified as fallacious, all we can look forward to is more of the status quo (increased spending for reform, to fix the last reform, and on, and on, ad nauseam). My Best, Jim Boyes jmboyes@whidbey.net Host of CEANet +--- Views do not reflect any other organization or group--------------+ Arthur Hu Check out collecting toys page Hot Wheels, JL arthurhu@halcyon.com Matchbox McD BK toys Thomas Tank Engine email to join my toy mailing list Kirkland WA 98034 http://www.halcyon.com/arthurhu/collect.htm To: "Conservatives for Excellence in Ed." , Eduction-Consumers From: "James Kilpatrick" Subject: Op-ed by Bob Offutt Date sent: Sat, 1 Nov 1997 00:39:42 -0600 >From: TFRC >Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 23:55:02 EST >To: Dggarner@aol.com >Subject: Op-ed by Bob Offutt >Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) > >State curriculum standards ñ a lost opportunity >by Bob Offutt, State Board of Education, District 5 >Published in the San Antonio Business Journal this week > >The State Board of Education recently adopted, in a 9-6 vote, new curriculum >standards, called the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS). As the >foundation for classroom instruction, textbooks, teacher preparation and the >state-mandated TAAS tests, these standards will affect all aspects of student >learning. I was one of six Board members voting against adoption of the TEKS. >During the controversial three year process of developing the TEKS, I worked >for a goal shared by at least five other conservative Board members: >Academically rigorous standards. Our refusal to rubber-stamp the original >version of the horribly mushy TEKS (labeled so by the media) no doubt forced >the Austin education establishment to make the standards more specific and >more rigorous. Our exposure of the deficiencies led to improvements in the >final version, but not enough to make the TEKS worthy of support. > The TEKS represent a lost opportunity to have the best standards in the >nation for Texas children. We had the opportunity to restore history and >geography as the core of social studies. By doing so, we would have reversed a >national trend that places sociology at the core. Texas is one of just five >states (five!) that still has some history in its curriculum standards, but >having just "some" history is not good enough. Respected curriculum experts >refer to the early grade social studies curriculum just adopted as "Tot >Sociology." > Sixth grade world history has been changed to a "world cultures" >course. In >fact, a child can go through 13 years of public school without ever taking a >world history course. A studentís last exposure to the history surrounding the >Declaration of Independence and the development of the U.S. Constitution >occurs in middle school, and important events such as President Bushís >extraordinary leadership in the Persian Gulf War have been omitted. This is >unacceptable. > Texas students will be behind other states and most industrialized >nations, >which prepare their students to be algebra-ready by the end of seventh grade. >This will make it difficult for them to complete a sequence of higher-level >math courses before graduation and place them at a disadvantage in the college >admissions process. > We had the opportunity in English/Language Arts to have our >children become >more familiar at earlier ages with the classic literature such as Shakespeare, >but we did not move toward that expectation. We lost an opportunity to adopt >an alternative English/Language Arts document that is cited as one of the best >frameworks in the nation by respected scholars. >Education Commissioner Mike Moses expressed pride in the TEKS and believes >public schools will have the full confidence of the community (Viewpoint, "New >school curriculum plan is giant step in the right direction," October 10, >1997). I believe that we lost the opportunity to meet the publicís expectation >that schools uphold rigorous academic standards, and we placed too much >emphasis on sociability, emotions and self-esteem. >Furthermore, I find the commissionerís pride in the TEKS contradictory. In a >recent letter Moses faults conservative Board members for a less than >harmonious process. He disclosed that the votes were in place to pass the TEKS >in September 1996, and he expressed regret that he "ever agreed" to delay the >TEKS adoption for a year -- revealing that the original "mushy" version would >have been rubber-stamped a year ago had some of us not held out for the best. >In my opinion, the commissioner canít have it both ways. When he stated his >regret for the year delay in adoption, he lost bragging rights on his use of >the conservative scholars who helped improve the TEKS. It was only during the >last year that conservative scholars reviewed the TEKS and provided their >recommendations, and this was only at the insistence of conservative board >members. >The controversy of the TEKS process was predictable, given the make-up of the >writing teams and the process set in motion by his predecessor. Many of us had >hoped that the commissioner would rid the writing teams of the liberal >establishment educators appointed by his predecessor. Had he done so, he >could have forged a clear path for the research-based phonics reading approach >he says he advocates. Had he made the right appointments, he would not have >had to bring in conservative experts late in the process. They would have had >a seat at the table in the beginning, rather than being invited following >pressure from the public and conservative Board members. We could have started >with common sense instead of fads like "fuzzy" math, "look-guess" reading and >history without facts. >It is my hope that the commissioner will make some corrections in the course >heís charted for education in Texas that will lead to strengthening the TEKS. >I look forward to the day when we have the best standards in the nation. We >are not there yet. > Jimmy Kilpatrick Phone 713 520-9715 Coordinator of Community Programs Fax 713 520-7214 Advisor for Reading and Reading Disabilities University of Texas at Austin Home 281 265-2368 Charles A. Dana Center Mobile 281 536-4713 1723 Westheimer Road Houston,Texas 77098-1611 EDUCATION CONSUMERS CLEARINGHOUSE From: "Bob&Barbara Tennison" To: "Arthur Hu" Subject: Response: Oak Park Elem., etc. Date sent: Fri, 31 Oct 1997 18:00:02 -0800 Hello Arthur, You commented that it only gets worse as you try to track down these "buzz" words. Welcome to the wonderful world of Outcome Based Education my friend. You are discovering what many parents, grandparents, teachers and others discovered a long time ago. 1984 has come to life in the persons of bill clinton, wife hillary, marc tucker, david rockerfeller et. al. Fasten your seat belt, the bumpy ride isn't over yet. BET To: The LOOP:; From: "James Kilpatrick" Subject: America Reads Date sent: Tue, 4 Nov 1997 08:13:07 -0600 Pick-off a teachers loop. This is what Clinton wants to do with out money. My daughter is a college student & works for America Reads. Some of you wanted to know how she was trained, etc. Here is my latest e-mail from her: “I am not really doing the procedure they trained me to do for America Reads, mostly because the teacher would rather have me just help out. I teach everyone their reading exercises for the day, in 3 levels of reading ability classes groups. One girl, “***”, is the only one I tutor personally. She doesn't know all of her alphabet sounds yet, or how to make all her letters. So Mrs. “***” has me help her with the alphabet. Right now we're making an alphabet book. What I was trained to do at America Reads training sessions: There were 2 2-hour sessions. 2 women who tutor children in reading taught us basically their own procedure. We were given a handbook, which I'll bring to show you next time I come home. There are activity ideas, like finding words in newspapers, etc. But that wasn't mainly what they wanted us to do. They told us we would be given books in advance, before we came to tutor, that we should read over ourselves. Then, when we start tutoring with that book, we should first introduce the book to the child - tell them the title, the names of the important people, point out hard words, show them the pictures, and basically tell them the whole story before they read it themselves. I think “***” might benefit from this kind of thing, but not any of the other kids in the whole first grade class. And this was supposed to be for tutoring k-5th graders! Whatever. Anyway, then we let the child read the book to us out loud, following along with their finger. If they get something wrong, we're supposed to point it out in a way that made it sound like praise : things like "Good. I'm glad you found the hard part." and things like that. They really stressed being as positive as we can. I still do this when any of the kids read for me. Mrs. “***” (the teacher) doesn't specify how I should do anything, just that they should follow along with their finger. It surprises me how well some kids can read... a lot of them have certain books memorized perfectly, so you think they're reading great... but then some can also just pick up a new book and read it perfectly for real. There is a wide range of reading abilites in one 1st grade class! Mrs. “***” says that it's partly because the different kindergarten teachers don't expect the same things from the kids. The training sessions also taught us to help kids write stories. (one or two sentences). It would be about something they like or did recently. We were supposed to remind them of what their story was as they wrote it, and if they misspelled something we try to be as positive as we can when we correct them. That's pretty much the extent of it. There were different ways they showed us to deal with the child making a mistake, like having them try to guess what was wrong, or having them figure out the right answer. This kind of tutoring would be fun too, but I like being a kind of teacher's aid, too. I basically help them with all the activities the class does during the time I can be there. Once or twice a week for a half hour, I tutor “***”." Jimmy Kilpatrick Phone 713 520-9715 Coordinator of Community Programs Fax 713 520-7214 Advisor for Reading and Reading Disabilities University of Texas at Austin Home 281 265-2368 Charles A. Dana Center Mobile 281 536-4713 1723 Westheimer Road Houston,Texas 77098-1611 Date sent: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 09:25:12 -0800 From: Dianne Cassidy Send reply to: cassidy@pacifier.com To: Arthur Hu Copies to: education-consumers@tricon.net Subject: Re: Websites: Resources for High School Reform Arthur Hu wrote: > > And we're supposed to fight all of them???? > > > From: Dianne Cassidy > > To: education-consumers@tricon.net > > Subject: Websites: Resources for High School Reform > Arthur: I have been doing (scattered) research on stw issues for a few months (2 years if I include general education reform), and I wonder what I am supposed to do with the information when I get it all (assuming I ever do). I want to create a flow-chart and description of the connections and influence of the laws, organizations and people who are shaping the STW movement. Reading Diana Fessler's report on "The Work Toward National Assessments, Standards and Certificates" has been a motivator for me to do a similar (hopefully shorter) version for Oregon. See her website at: http://www.fessler.com What then? This question needs an answer soon -- for all of us. Dianne Cassidy Lake Oswego, OR \clip\97\25\illimpl.txt Illegal Immigrants Remain a Concern Despite Economy Los Angeles Times, Sunday, November 2, 1997 By DARYL KELLEY, Times Staff Writer [Ventura County poll] "My son was in a bilingual class, and it was bad," said Deborah Thayer, 44, a graphic designer from Oxnard. "The teacher even told me at the end of the second grade, 'Don't ever let him be in a bilingual class again, because this class learned half of what the other second-grade class learned.' And I've had friends with the same experience." Date sent: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 09:41:15 -0500 From: Edward Gardner To: HOFPAT@aol.com, sleeper@warwick.net Copies to: education-consumers@tricon.net Subject: Re: Fwd: Paradigm Shift - 3R's to 5 C's -Reply >>> 11/05/97 12:03pm >>> I have a few questions for everyone on this list. Please if you would, post to the loop so that all can see just how far and wide this is along, with the individuals/organizations involved in the implementation of this new shift. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Its not just happening in schools, but in business as well. Its a remolding of our entire world. I'm a Manufacturing Engineer in Syracuse, NY. Trying to get to a class on new methods of gear cutting is like pulling teeth, but if I want to take a touchy-feely class on "Growing in the Workplace" or "Employee Empowerment" I can go at the drop of a hat. Yet my review is based on my technical excellence, not how fuzzy I am. Like I said, its not just in our schools, but has infiltrated our entire society. Ed EDUCATION CONSUMERS CLEARINGHOUSE From: sleeper@warwick.net Date sent: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 09:03:37 -0800 Send reply to: sleeper@warwick.net To: HOFPAT@aol.com Copies to: education-consumers@tricon.net Subject: Re: Fwd: Paradigm Shift - 3R's to 5 C's Dear Gloria: This is perfect! This is what I was looking for, but had forgotten who sent it. I have a few questions for everyone on this list. Please if you would, post to the loop so that all can see just how far and wide this is along, with the individuals/organizations involved in the implementation of this new shift. 1st - Gloria please your location - State & Country and organization doing the implementation. 2nd - Everyone else that has information on 'transforming' their school or a school near then, from a Acquisition of Knowledge for the 3 R's to an Acquisition of 'Developmental Skills' for the 5 C's, could you please tell me/us your location - State & Country, and who/which individual/organization brought this 'new' paradigm shift to your area. 3rd - Any Educators out there that are having this paradigm shift from the 3 R's to the 5 C's being taught to them through either/or/and College, Teacher In-Service training, New School Goals, etc..., your location - State & Country, and the organization that is providing consultation or help in implementation of this 'new' program. My reason for wanting this information. Everytime that we talk to people about the changes in the education our children are receiving we(or at least I am)are being told not to fear because our schools, school districts, DOE for States and the nation know that there is a problem with todays education and they are going to fix it by requiring 'Higher Standards". And so most of the parents are mollified into waiting for the new standards. My question is this; Just how many parents know that 'High Standards' for the educational establishment is the acquisition of 'Developmental Skill for the 5C's and NOT as most people assume, an Aquisition of Knowledge for the 3 R's? What if we could prove to parents, the general public, and the news people that what is considered important 'academic learning' is nothing more then the 'learning' of: Communication, Cooperation, Commitment, Creativity, and Compassion, which anyone who reads this can see that there is no academics involved, in favor of the 3 R's - Reading, Writing, Arithmatic? Parents will put up with a lot of crap when it comes to their schools but just how many will put up with an establishment that does not consider Reading, Writing, and Arithmatic important? Just how many will agree with DAP's principals when they find this out? I mean really, just how important are 'developmental skills when they have no basis of knowledge to 'Develope' from? Talk about putting the horse before the cart!!!! I mean really, that would be like asking a student to look-up a word in the dictionary without teaching them to spell. Stupid right? Or, like asking students to explain the formula for a math problem without teaching them what the formula is. Insane right? Or, like asking students to write a report without teaching them what nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs, etc... are, or what a paragraph is. Ridiculous right? Or, like setting a reading level requirment for certain grade levels but using books that have had their reading levels reclassified higher. Impossible right? I mean really, what parent would tolerate this type of 'academic learning' being practiced on THEIR children? Thoughts to ponder. hummmmmmmmmm Sincerely yours, Sleeper HOFPAT@aol.com wrote: > > Sleeper, > > I originally posted the Paradigm Shift which lists the five C's. Hope this > helps.. > > Gloria Hoffman > --------------------- > Forwarded message: > From: HOFPAT@aol.com > Sender: owner-education-consumers@tricon.net > To: education-consumers@tricon.net > Date: 97-10-05 11:11:16 EST > > The administration provided the task force with some new information from the > Griffin Institute at our first meeting on Tuesday. > > While some of this information is not new, I was surprised at the shift from > the 3R's to the 5C's. Since the first posting of this is difficult to read I > will try to post it in a different format. Hope this makes it easier to read > and understand. > > A Paradigm Shift > > From: Instructional Focus on 3 R's > To: Focus is 5 C's Necessary for Future Success - 5 C's are Communication, > Cooperation, Commitment, Creativity, and Compassion > > From: Children Adapt > To: Schools Adapt > > From: Child is Passive > To: Child is Active > > From: Child is Dependent > To: Child is a Partner Constructing Knowledge > > From: Whole Group Instruction > To: Whole-Group, Small Groups, Cooperative and Individual > > From: Mostly Individual Isolated Tasks > To: Whole Group, Small Group, Cooperative and Individual > > From: Preset Material is Covered by Teacher > To: Child's Capacity to Plan and Learn is Extended > > From: Separate Subjects > To: Subjects are Integrated around Themes of Inquiry > > From: Workbooks > To: Concrete Materials, Quality Literature, Variety of Resources > > From: Verbal Informational Emphasis > To: Constructivist, Problem-Solving, Thinking Emphasis > > From:Single Correct Answers > To: Alternate Solutions Generated > > From: Work and Play Separate and Divided > To: Play is Valued for Learning, Thinking, Communication, Cooperation > > From: Teacher is the Sole Arbiter of What is Correct > To: Children Build and Examine Theories and Construct Knowledge > > From: Grouping is by Ability or Age > To: Grouping is Flexible by interests, Motivations, and Individual Needs > > From: Assessment is for Classification and Reporting > To: Assessment is for Making Instructional Decisions > > From: Child is Recipient of the Teacher's Information > To: Child is Collaborator in Constructing Own Knowledge > > From: Assessment focuses on What a Child Knows > To: Assessment Focuses on How a Child Learns and What a Child Can Do > > From: Periodic Tests for Assessment > To: Ongoing Observation of the Child and Child's Work for Assessment > > From: Answers are Valued > To: Questions are Valued > > From: Facts and Information are Valued > To: Information Acquisition, Evaluation, and Application are Valued > > >From Paper and Pencil Representations of Knowledge > To: Multiple Ways of Representing Knowledge > > This was adapted from the Primary Program Resource Document, Ministry of > Education, Province of British Columbia, Canada. > > > Gloria Hoffman > EDUCATION CONSUMERS CLEARINGHOUSE EDUCATION CONSUMERS CLEARINGHOUSE Interesting question, is it right to use our legislators to keep the educators in check? On the one hand, considering that there isn't much process to keep educators within political bounds, this might be neccesary as a last resort, but on the other hand, the other side is also passing laws mandating educations standards. For example the whole WA state education reform movement was set in place by state law and the legislators who wanted "reform". ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- Date: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 18:37:48 -0500 To: joaneb001@aol.com From: Fred Battey Subject: Heritage Foundation & the Reading Excellence Act >X-POP3-Rcpt: fredb001@blue >Return-Path: >From: "Roxanne Sitler" >To: >Subject: Heritage Foundation & the Reading Excellence Act >Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 11:54:37 -0800 >X-MSMail-Priority: Normal > >Dear Fred: > >Could you forward to the loop - also did you get my request for a loop list >so I can rebuild my address book - then I won't have to bug you with >forwarding for me...Thanks!! > >Dear Loop: > >I must say that I believe the Heritage Foundation has missed the mark on >its analysis of HR2614. I am referring to the hotlink posted to the loop >which provides the Heritage position on this bill. The Executive >Memorandum No. 500 by Christine L. Olson entitled, The Reading Excellence >Act: How Congress Can Encourage Proven Methods of Instruction in the >Classroom, fails to address what I believe is the central issue here. >Right here in the title of this memorandum is the central tenant of the >bill fallacy - "Congress Can Encourages Methods in the Classroom" For a >think-tank who constantly refers to issues of constitutionality, I can't >help but ask the question: Why has this analysis missed the point that >Congress has no business "encouraging" (which is the wrong word to use in >reference to the logistics of this bill) methods in the classroom at all. >The tenth amendment to the constitution is pretty explicit and I don't >remember hearing too many arguments from the opponents of education reform >that we need to keep the federal government involved in education. > >Once again, I ask - Are we in this battle to have an "acceptable" form of >federalized education in this nation? Are we so tired of fighting at the >state and local levels that we are handing decisions over to the federal >government (the good or the bad)? We are setting up another precedent >here...and those who are so adamantly opposed to federal testing better be >aware that when you have a federal reading bill, federal accountability >will follow in the form of federal testing and then what? - federal >curriculum? As the old saying goes...be careful what you wish for. > >I issue a challenge to anyone on this loop and also the Heritage >Foundation, to address this bill on the basic tenant of its >constitutionality. While I feel there are other important flaws in the >legislation (i.e. the granting process and who these grants go to and their >accountability back to the federal level, definitions, etc..), this >federalization of education is THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE WE ARE DEALING WITH >IN THIS BILL.. > >THIS IS A DEBATE THAT NEEDS SOME AIRING... > >Roxanne Sitler > > GROUPING STUDENTS BY READING ABILITY INSTEAD OF AGE http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/1997-09/28/112l-092897-idx.htm \clip\97\26\readabl.txt A New Take on an Old Problem Triangle Elementary Begins Experiment With No-Grade System to Improve Reading By Ann O'Hanlon Washington Post Staff Writer Sunday, September 28, 1997; Page V01 The Washington Post How can a school win with kids like these? http://detnews.com/menu/stories/55910.htm \clip\97\26\acred.txt The Detroit News July 14, 1996 Test scores reflect other woes at state's unaccredited schools By Mark Hornbeck / Detroit News Lansing Bureau Michigan's 39 unaccredited elementary and secondary schools have much more in common than just lousy scores on state math and reading tests. Norm, I'll bet you're still going to insist test scores have nothing to do with quality, and I still hope you send your daughter to schools with 50th percentile or worse test scores. You wil never, ever learn. Students at the district flagship, Lowell Alternative High School, once again performed well above the national average and ranked first among high schools, scoring a 76 in reading comprehension and 80.8 in math. As impressive as these numbers are, however, they represent a significant decline in both subject areas from last year's figures - a 1.4-point drop in reading and 1.9-point drop in math. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/examiner/article.cgi?article=NEWS36.dtl& year=1997&month=08&day=13 \clip\97\26\sfscore.txt TheSan Francisco Examiner Wednesday, Aug. 13, 1997 · Page A 1 S.F. kids improve in math, reading Test scores rise for 5th straight year, top national average (for the benefit of other on the loop, NOrman matloff of UC davis is on a jihad against Asians and anyone else who gets high test scores, he claims that people with low test scoress, low grades, and horrible resumes are just as good as people with the best credentials, and that's the problem with education and high tech, they don't choose people with bad credentials, believe it or not!) From: DaveTNCLE@aol.com Date sent: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 20:00:38 -0500 (EST) To: arthurhu@mail1.halcyon.com, professor@tricon.net Subject: Re: NCTM Standards and "Need" for reform In a message dated 97-11-05 10:34:23 EST, you write: << This whole thing sounds like the logical (or illogical) application of affirmative action thinking to K12 - completely dismiss everything we know about merit and why some kids end up on top >> Arthur, I am convinced that one of the really powerful dynamics in education is the discomfort many teachers feel with the fact that some kids do come out on top. This is perceived as inequitable, and, I suspect, raises fears for many teachers that their own efforts may have contributed to the result. And, I think they fear the human tendency, in themselves and others, to assign kids to categories and then match expectations to categories. The fear is of "misassigning" kids and then having lowered expectations become self-fulfilling. Put all this together and you have an environment where high achievement is often viewed dubiously. If the teachers take too much credit for it, if they promote achievement too hard, what do they say to the students and their parents who just don't make it? It's often easier simply to distance themselves from a focus on achievement. In the South, that is especially aggravated by any tendency of minorities to be underrepresented in the high achieving group. Dave Shearon, Nashville, TN Date sent: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 11:45:04 -0800 From: Dianne Cassidy Send reply to: cassidy@pacifier.com To: education-consumers@tricon.net Subject: [Fwd: Re: Polytechnic Education: A Step] Message-ID: <34620D5E.3ABB@pacifier.com> Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 10:33:02 -0800 From: Dianne Cassidy Reply-To: cassidy@pacifier.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bonnylinn@aol.com Subject: Re: Polytechnic Education: A Step References: <971105201616_-1811553568@mrin44.mail.aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bonnylinn@aol.com wrote: > > Diane, > > I've gathered a lot of that information already. Check out > http://geowww.geo.tcu.edu/stw.html to see if any of it is useful. Legislation > links are included. Good luck. It's a quagmire. > > Jeanne Jeanne: I DID LOOK! I AM IMPRESSED! I know I'm a johnny-come-lately to this topic compared to many of you, but I guess I have had to do much of the groundwork myself just to realize the scope of the problems facing our country. I spent several hours looking at your STW page and tracking down SOME of the sites I had not yet seen. I haven't told my husband how much printer ink I'm using printing up what I find. I wish this didn't all take so much time. Even though there is a US Printing Office that sells and orders federal documents in Portland, one still needs to know what to ask for. Indiscriminate requests can waste a lot of time and money while the one real jewel one seeks remains hidden. I started out looking for specific PROOF that 1)STW was linked to the CIM -- not just in theory, but in direct intent and action, 2)what was happening in Oregon with regards to the CIM/CAM/PASS/STW, and 3)connecting all of it to a larger national (international?) plan for the future so that when one looks at what is happening in another state, it will be obvious that it will be happen here too. Along the way I became interested in the organizational structures and where the money comes from. I haven't gotten very far with this as I want to complete (or get further) in my original investivation. My theory is 1) that the feds are dumping huge amounts of money into grants through various sources (direct grants from the DOE, Carl Perkins Grants, etc.) to further their aims, 2)universities (read professors looking for another item for their resume) lust after the money and build organizations to give legitimacy to STW (Johns Hopkins and SCANS, UC Berkeley and the NCRVE, etc.), 3)entire non-profit (read private, public records laws do not apply) organizations are created to deal with the implementation (NCEE and its subgroups, perhaps ADVANCE run by Arnold Packer?, and others I don't know about), and finally the use of existing nonprofit groups (NAB, NSBA, NEA and many more) to work on partnerships and implementation of STW. All together these organizations will: give legitimacy to STW, convince others that this is the bandwagon to be on (everybody else is doing it so it must be OK), jeopardize careers if one isn't involved, and create an infrastructure to draw upon when the system kicks into high gear. The geographic locations are interesting too, encompassing every major part of the country: NY, MN, MD, CA, OR, TX... I am sure no state has been overlooked (except maybe Montana). As you can see, the questions I have would take an increible amount of time to research, and being in Oregon makes it tough. Also, I do try to maintain a LIFE. :-} I would be interested in ANY comments you have to make -- if I am on the wrong track or need correction, do not hesitate to let me know! Also, any help you can give me is greatly appreciated. I think this is too big a project for one person, but if I start small, I can accomplish SOMEthing. As a side issue, I am rattleing some cages in our school district about the changes made to the US History course for H. S. juniors. This year it has been altered to cover ONLY the 20th century. The school board was not consulted and the decision was made at the district level. Supposedly the teachers are not happy with the result, though they are happy to have time to go into depth with less material to cover (less is NOT more). I believe that STW is the greatest threat to individual freedom this country is facing, and I want my children, and all children to understand what principles this country is founded on and what their rights are as citizens -- and what we have to lose. That these two issues should be linked together for me is hopefully sheer coincidence. I will continue my campaign for a complete US History course. This post is longer than I intended, but I would like to hear back from anyone who can shed some light on the BIG PICTURE. Sincerely, Dianne Cassidy Lake Oswego, OR EDUCATION CONSUMERS CLEARINGHOUSE Can I please put this on my web page? I'll even remove your email address. This is excellent stuff. Otherwise I'll have to stash this in my "protected file" that only I see. What's this "finger thumping" nonsense? BTW, I take you you've worked with poor black kids. It seems, but it hasn't been proven, that black kids who work just as hard and seriously as White and Asian kids do just as well. The only instances where blacks perform as well as whites are cases where they study as hard or harder, this much seems to be supported by evidence. It IS a fact that blacks absolutely do NOT perform as well as whites and Asians with equal parental education or income. What is your experience? Who ARE you anyway? > Subject: On the Road Again: Illinois > horror that I am talking to a teacher whose philosophy of teaching has > > From: Redyarrow@aol.com Seattle Schools superintendent Stanford among his brilliant new ideas include having teacher teach for only 4 days a week, and have kids do something else like take field trips or do independent study or god knows what on the 5th day (that's after his idea of having all the school staff spend 1 day in the classroom, as if they had 20% extra staff time, why not just cut the staff by 20%, and what the heck are they supposed to be doing in those classrooms, and which classes would they be assigned to??) Did this idea come from somplace else that's already suffering from this? > Subject: On the Road Again: Illinois > 3. Once again I am reminded about how few instructional days are actually > available in the schools. During the first 8 days my students are supposed > to teach, they will actually only be able to teach 5 days because of > inservice days, Veteran's day, and parent-teacher conference days. They are > only out in the schools for four days a week, and will almost never be able > to teach more than three of those days...often only two. Already, I know that > during the third week, one middle school is attending the play, "Peter Pan" > and another teacher will be away for two of the days while she attends a > Multiple Intelligences workshop by Gardiner. > HA! So you do admit that admitting the students with highest test scores on entry has a LOT to do with the best schools having the highest measures of quality, namely, academic credentials of the students it produces. Surely, you're not going to try to wriggle out of this one by saying that Lowell would still have the reputation of being the best school if it had the lowest, or even average test scores, even if it did have the best staff and program? Do you really think MIT would be regarded as the best engineering school if it admitted students with the same qualifications as UC Davis students? > From: Norm Matloff > To: Arthur Hu > Subject: Re: Guess who says high test scores don't mean Lowell is best > > On Wed, Nov 05, 1997 at 10:43:05AM -0800, Arthur Hu wrote: > > > Norm, I'll bet you're still going to insist test scores have > > nothing to do with quality, and I still hope you send your > > Arthur, I don't know why you keep pushing this, because you already > admitted that the high test scores of kids at a school like Lowell stem > from the fact that Lowell's admissions critieria are based on having > high test scores at the eighth grade -- this implies nothing about the > quality of the courses or teachers at Lowell being high. Kids who do > well on a test at the eighth-grade will do well at one at the twelfth > grade. > > Norm > > Date sent: Wed, 05 Nov 1997 20:04:46 -0600 From: Kenneth Wessels Send reply to: cati@inav.net Organization: http://members.aol.com/cydonia102/private/ken.html To: arthurhu@halcyon.com Subject: Re: FWD: Teen Moms & Education Arthur- Please keep in mind that the term "teen" in this context of concern is itself a limiting factor of a deliberate nature. Many people have had children at 19 and even 18 and live normal and decent lives. Those who are bearing children at 13, 14, and 15 are for sure children themselves except in terms of puberty. The statistics on inner city or Negro births show a lot of girls in those early years beginning their child bearing years and continuing on with child bearing for many more years. Age 12 seems to be not uncommon for giving birth and even 11 year olds have been known to give birth in Chicago. The acceptance of this trend among their own relatives and a shared living arrangement has softened the impact of such drastic family arrangements. A situation has developed where who the father is mostly unknown and even the mother is secondary to the larger household of siblings and aunts and agencies who see that things are done for the infants. I hope we can get beyond the term "teen" soon in describing these disturbing trends in our nation. It only hides the depth of the problem at the 11-15 age group. -Kenneth Wessels Date sent: Thu, 6 Nov 1997 19:41:50 -0800 From: Norm Matloff To: Arthur Hu Copies to: Norm Matloff , jackpeng@juno.com, pjherz@siu.edu, sdraoul@aol.com, dchiang@sprintmail.com, dalewarner@aol.com, preacher@earthlink.net, wyll@gr.cc.wa.us, PLAUT@HAAS.BERKELEY.EDU Subject: Re: Guess who says high test scores don't mean Lowell is be On Thu, Nov 06, 1997 at 09:27:03AM -0800, Arthur Hu wrote: > HA! So you do admit that admitting the students with highest > test scores on entry has a LOT to do with the best schools having > the highest measures of quality, namely, academic credentials > of the students it produces. Arthur, you are truly amazing. What I said was that students at schools whose entrance criteria consist of having high test scores get high test scores later on. How do you leap to the conclusion that I think that the students determine the quality of the school? On the contrary, what I said was that the Lowell students' high test scores are NOT due to the quality of the school, i.e. NOT due to the school's teachers, courses and so on. Again, you have agreed with this. So why would a student want to go to Lowell? Norm I have a list of the people, and caught some of them at a school to work meeting. It's pathetic, there's basically next to zero oppostion to this madness, except evidently me and Roxanne Sitler vs. the entire education industry, government, with corporate support. Why does it have to be the parents as david and system as goliath? I'm spending time getting up to speed with the whole education reform behemoth, I never realized it had gotten so far, or covered so much lunacy. I'm looking for people to back me up when they ask I'm speaking for, I might be able to break through with some press people in the state, Seattle is a lost cause. > From: BOANERGES@aol.com > To: arthurhu@mail1.halcyon.com > Subject: Re: Re: unsubscribe > Yes, I am interested in substantive politically-related news. Having read > some of your pieces, you are on the right track. The new test is idiotic. > Have you contacted the appropriate Congressmen, i.e., those on the Education > Committee, and those from our state? > It is an interesting phenomenon that the educrats can't get anything right. > How can educated people be so dense, or blind? Or are they just trying to > justify their existence and jobs by coming up with new, albeit junk, > programs? that would be a cynical view, but I can find no other reasonable > explanation. > Parents are better educators than professionals! > Dr. John Vasko > Date sent: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 07:31:26 -0500 From: "Barbara S. Patrick" Send reply to: dutchland@netstep.net To: Arthur Hu Subject: Re: Guess who says high test scores don't mean Lowell is best Arthur Hu wrote: > > Norm, I'll bet you're still going to insist test scores have > nothing to do with quality, and I still hope you send your > daughter to schools with 50th percentile or worse > test scores. You wil never, ever learn. > > Students at the district flagship, Lowell Alternative > High School, once again performed well above the > national average and ranked first among high schools, > scoring a 76 in reading comprehension and 80.8 in math. As > impressive as these numbers are, however, they represent a > significant decline in both subject areas from last year's > figures - a 1.4-point drop in reading and 1.9-point drop in > math. > > http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/examiner/article.cgi?article=NEWS36.dtl& > year=1997&month=08&day=13 \clip\97\26\sfscore.txt TheSan Francisco > Examiner Wednesday, Aug. 13, 1997 · Page A 1 S.F. kids improve in > math, reading Test scores rise for 5th straight year, top national > average > > (for the benefit of other on the loop, NOrman matloff of > UC davis is on a jihad against Asians and anyone else who > gets high test scores, he claims that people with low test > scoress, low grades, and horrible resumes are just as > good as people with the best credentials, and that's the > problem with education and high tech, they don't choose > people with bad credentials, believe it or not!) Hello...I'm NOT a teacher, just a well informed woman who has been observing all of this junk for a good many years. What you are describing here is the general demise in this area, which has been evidenced in others..the self esteem garbage is another. Our son was tested @ age 15 and we were told he was just middle/average..don't expect a great deal of him and don't push him! Well, Ian wanted to know the results f this reading testing. I told him to sit down, as he'd not like what I was told. I did then tell him the results but asked him to think about what he knew about the sports world...it washis interest. He knew all of the stats, meaning he'd been reading them and logging them in his head. So-o, he would have to read things maybe more than once or pay more strict atttntion when he did read. He would probably retain things longer than I who read quickly and catch things quickly but have to drop some as I learn more. I told him if he was interested he WOULD read well and learn. Granted there is grade inflation. He finished college on the Dean's list. Oh..that testing also said he had poor hand to eye coordination!. He's not an individual to bet against in ANY sport he gets into as he does so well there. I think they flubbed on the eye to hand coordination. He's got a 2 handicap in golf. What must be about 10years ago, I sat in a school board meeting and listened to the Pres. of that board talk about the problems some children have taking tests but that this bad test taking doesn't mean they aren't good students. When I was a child (I'm now 60) we had so many tests, we never lfinched or tightened up over taking another one. My teachers told us it was their way of learning what we still didn't know so they could teach us better. Back to the Pres. of the school board..he was also a Detective in Kingston, NY's police dept. I asked him if this is the case about people tightening up over a test, what happens when men/women face tense situations in a police call? We all face tight situations but what children should learn is that they have to handle the situation as best they can but this means learning to their best ability and always reaching for more (taught to me by my Mom). Make a mistake? Depending on the level of mistake, you'll still be there to try again and surely tomorrow will be coming and the world will continue to turn...so get over your nervousness and get on with what needs doing. Simple truths that seem no longer to be given to children. Meanwhile they waste children's time with lies! Cheerio, Barbara Patrick The funny thing is that marxist places like Russia never screwed up their math education as bad as we have! Their math is great. > From: Quentin49@aol.com > To: arthurhu@mail1.halcyon.com > Subject: Re: NCTM Standards and "Need" for reform > The educational "reformers" don't give a tinker's damn about academic > achievement. Their goal is social change. They are political socialists at > heart for the most part and the see the educational system as the ideal tool > for instilling their ideas into young children. To do this they need > ignorant students. No enlightened society has ever adopted socialism on its > own merits. Anyway, they are using the eductational system to further their > social and political goals, not academics. That is why they pay no heed to > the research. It doesn't say what they want to hear. > From: LZJOSHUA@aol.com Date sent: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 09:17:40 -0500 (EST) To: education-consumers@tricon.net Subject: Final: National Assessments To all: Below I have described key points, as I understand them, from my review of the final version of negotiated language on national assessments. Then what follows are my concerns listed per section. I realize the vote is final and the year is winding down. However, I do believe the issue will continue to receive public discussion throughout 1998. Summary of provisions: * Sec. 305: Prohibits federal funding from being used to field test, pilot test implement, administer or distribute in any way, any national tests. Exceptions are made for the NAEP and TIMSS already in use. * Sec. 306: The National Academy of Sciences is charged with the responsibility of conducting a "feasibility study" to determine if commercially available standardized tests AND State assessments can be compared with each other and the NAEP. An interim report must be filed with the White House and congressional education committees by June 15, 1998 and a final report by September 1, 1998 * Sec. 307: The EXCLUSIVE authority over ALL policies, direction, and guidelines for developing voluntary national tests shall be vested in the National Assessment Governing Board. The NAGB will review the current contract for national test development and will modify it if necessary or will negotiate a new contract. * Sec. 308: The NAS shall submit a report to the congressional education committees and appropriations committees by September 1. 1998 that evaluates ALL test items developed or funded by the Dept. of Education or any other agency of federal government pursuant to section 307. One required component of the evaluation will be to determine whether the test items can be used for tracking, graduation, or promotion of students. * Sec. 309: The NAS shall conduct a study and make written recommendatons on appropriate methods, practices, and safeguards to ensure that (1) existing and new tests are not used in a discriminatory manner or inappropriately for student promotion, tracking, or graduation; and (2) existing and new tests adequately assess student reading and mathematics achievement. The NAS must also submit a report on this study to the White House, NAGB, congressional education committees, and appropriations committees by September 1, 1998 * Sec. 310: Prohibits the Federal govt. from requiring any State or local educational agency or school to administer or implement any pilot or field test in any subject or grade. It also prohibits the Federal govt. from requiring any student from taking ANY national test in any subject or grade. However, it exempts the NAEP and the TIMSS from this prohibition. * Sec. 311: Prohibits the federal govt., State or local educational agency from requiring any private or parochial school student or home-schooled individual to take any pilot or field test developed under this Act or related contracts. Summary of my concerns: * Sec. 305: This section does NOT prohibit the use of federal funds for test "development". It is illogical to develop something that can't be administered. This appears to be a wasteful use of our tax dollars. * Sec. 306: The implications of this section for Ohio [as well as other states] is that comparibility between the Ohio Proficiency Tests and the NAEP will be made. If the two are comparable, or if Ohio's test is adjusted to become comparable, then Ohio could begin administering a facsimile of a national assessment. * Sec. 307: This section once again reveals that too much authority has been given to unelected federal officials. * Sec. 308: Test items will be evaluated to determine use for tracking, graduation, or promotion of students. This is exactly what we DON'T want. Yet, federal agents will carry out this directive supposedly for tests that will never be administered. (See sec. 305) * Sec. 309: The NAS will recommend safeguards to "ensure" tests are not used in a "discriminatory manner or inappropriately" for student promotion, tracking, or graduation. Discriminatory? Inappropriately? This is not the issue. They shouldn't be used AT ALL for promotion, tracking, or graduation. Remember, federal control of assessments lends to federal control of curricula. Again, this refers to assessments that will supposedly never be administered. * Sec. 310: This section is useless if the NAEP and the TIMSS are exempted. The NAEP is a criterion-referenced assessment. It would be inappropriate to use it for the same purpose as a norm-referenced assessment. * Sec. 311: This provision DOES NOT PROHIBIT federal, state, or local agents from requiring national test administration for private/parochial or home schooled students once the assessments are beyond the pilot/field testing stage. In conclusion, I believe the final language on national assessments [when examined as a whole] presumes the use of federally directed assessments sometime in the future. I am concerned that the barn door has been opened and I am not sure how easily it can be closed once again. Respectfully, Melanie Elsey North Canton, Ohio LZjoshua@aol.com EDUCATION CONSUMERS CLEARINGHOUSE From: LZJOSHUA@aol.com Date sent: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 20:00:10 -0500 (EST) To: arthurhu@mail1.halcyon.com Subject: Re: Final: National Assessments Dear Arthur, Thanks for your response. I agree with your point about the bottom 40%. It's my understanding that the NAEP is a criterion-referenced standardized assessment developed under contractual agreements with the Office of Educational Research and Improvement [OERI] in the U.S. Department of Education. It is conducted by the Commissioner of Education Statistics under the National Assessment Governing Board. In a parent informaton letter prepared by the feds [January, 1992], the NAEP is described as a "continuing survey of the knowledge, skills, and attitudes of young Americans and the subjects they are taught in school." There is nothing I have ever seen from the U.S.Dept. of Education that suggests that the NAEP is norm-referenced. Sincerely, Melanie Elsey N. Canton, Ohio LZjoshua@aol.com From: Quentin49@aol.com Date sent: Mon, 10 Nov 1997 21:18:10 -0500 (EST) To: arthurhu@mail1.halcyon.com Subject: Re: NCTM Standards and "Need" for reform That is true. The Soviets were wise enough to know that applying socialism to math was probably not a good idea. They weren't quite as wise with their science (especially biology as defined by Lysenko) and history. I was being a bit too broad with the socialist label. There is really more to the motivation than that, but it is based on a utopian view of society that is unrealistic in my opinion. The result of the belief system is that knowing your past or knowing current knowlege is not very important. There is a denial that anything we normally consider as real is real and that reality can be made up to be whatever the student desires it to be. So the correct term would have been utopianism rather than just mere socialism. One example of this I have seen is a booklet put out be ASCD entitled "Envisioning Process as Content". It essentially says that virtually all content is irrelevant and that merely teaching some "higher order thinking skills" (which are never clearly defined in the booklet) and "accessing skills" is all that is important. Since there is so much information out there we cannot possibly learn it all. Besides much of it will be quickly outdated. Therefore let's not bother teaching any of it. This is the attitude that seems to permeate the developmentally appropriate thinking and some of this is laced subtley throughout the NCTM standards. There is also much emphasis on cooperative learning rather than individual learning. This fosters dependence on others where we adults today would never even think or needing help. I have noted that much of this philosophy is lost on the kids, fortunately, who innately rebel against all the cooperative stuff and still attempt to do things on their own. It is an innate human tendency to want to be as independent as possible. When educators try to stifle that, their ideas are rejected. Sorry to have vented, but I find it so frustrating to see these educrats rant and rave about reform when the very things they have done are causing the need for reform. Unfortunately their prescription is to give the patient more poison instead of the antidote. From: sleeper@warwick.net Date sent: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 07:49:38 -0800 Send reply to: sleeper@warwick.net To: education-consumers@tricon.net Subject: Re: My response: Conflict and Per Resolution Boards for Kids Dear All: Melanie thought that I should copy my reply to the loop. As she was one of the questionies, I guess it's ok, so here it is. (With a few new additions.) (An aside to Melanie - My arm feels so much better :) hehehehe) Sincerely yours, Sleeper Dear Steve, Marcia, and Susan: This is not verifiable evidence to prove there fallicies, but it is a parents perspective on these programs and what they DO NOT and DO teach our children. Before these programs are added to any other schools, those parents had better ask the boards some very tough questions. Here are a few of my observations: 1. They DO NOT teach our children how to handle problems on their own. They DO teach our children to rely on others to resolve problems for them. <(The per mediation board members are the ones who now> <'solve the problems, no matter how long it takes.) 2. They DO NOT teach our children how to 'relate' to others. They DO teach our children that 'others' can help them relate. <(If they have a disagreement they are taught> > To the Loop: > > Can anybody help out here? Both Susan and Marcia need some advice ......... > Please copy me in too -- thanks! > > Steven Wallace > > ================================ > Subj: Re: URGENT: Members Need Help > Date: Fri, 7 Nov 1997 00:49:34 -0500 (EST) > From: SusanH9876@aol.com (Susan) > To: mkfields@rma.edu (Melanie), KHolg10296@aol.com (Karen H.), > QUCX72A@prodigy.com (Adams, Iona KY) > Cc: XcongressX@aol.com (via List) > > My husband's daughter (my stepdaughter), who lives in another city, is > involved in peer mediation and we are VERY concerned. We would love to have > the same information as is requested in the following post. Could you post > this as well? > > Thank you. > > [Susan] > > --------------------------------------------------- > In a message dated 97-11-06 23:47:12 EST, Marcia writes: > > Does anyone out there have any concrete data on the harmful effects of the > following school programs? (or perhaps some legal prohibitions?): > > (a) Conflict Resolution, (b) Peer Mediation, (c) PALS, etc. > > Local conservative schoolboard member needs info ASAP to prepare for debate > with two school psychologists this coming Tuesday morning, November 11th. > > Thanks, > > Marcia > > EDUCATION CONSUMERS CLEARINGHOUSE EDUCATION CONSUMERS CLEARINGHOUSE Date sent: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 20:37:47 -0800 From: Norm Matloff To: Steven Plaut Copies to: Norm Matloff , Arthur Hu , jackpeng@juno.com, pjherz@siu.edu, sdraoul@aol.com, dchiang@sprintmail.com, dalewarner@aol.com, preacher@earthlink.net, wyll@gr.cc.wa.us Subject: Re: Wrong to turn away Jews, but what about Chinese? On Tue, Nov 11, 1997 at 08:20:31PM -0800, Steven Plaut wrote: > What does "overrepresentation" have to do with anything? Since when is > "over" or "under" representation a legitimate public policy issue? One of the central goals of affirmative action, even among those who oppose "preferential treatment," is to achieve diversity in the student body, faculty and workplace. So, underrepresentation is a central issue, with virtually universal, bipartisan agreement. > Dartmouth discriminated against Jews and affirmative action apartheid is > supposed to serve as compensation for past discrimination. So when do the > Jews get their turn? Personally, I have never subscribed to the notion that affirmative action should correct for past discrimination. In my view, affirmative action is about CURRENT lack of participation of some groups in society, and the harm that brings to not only those groups but also to soceity as a whole. Norm So the bottom line is that Lowell's policy of officially turning away students simply because they are Chinese is justifiable, according to matloff?? Or is it only justifiable to turn away Chinese, but not Jews? Date sent: Tue, 11 Nov 1997 20:20:31 -0800 (PST) From: Steven Plaut To: Norm Matloff Copies to: Arthur Hu , jackpeng@juno.com, pjherz@siu.edu, sdraoul@aol.com, dchiang@sprintmail.com, dalewarner@aol.com, preacher@earthlink.net, wyll@gr.cc.wa.us Subject: Re: Wrong to turn away Jews, but what about Chinese? What does "overrepresentation" have to do with anything? Since when is "over" or "under" representation a legitimate public policy issue? Dartmouth discriminated against Jews and affirmative action apartheid is supposed to serve as compensation for past discrimination. So when do the Jews get their turn? On Tue, 11 Nov 1997, Norm Matloff wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 11, 1997 at 08:01:41PM -0800, Steven Plaut wrote: > > > yES, but he did not recommend affirmative action preferences for Jews as > > compensation. Where is Dartmouth's consistency? > > No one claims Jews are an underrepresented group in academia these days. > Jews are way overrepresented among faculty, and as Wiesel noted, even > at the college president level. In fact, I assume Pres. Freedman > himself is Jewish, and at least one of his predecessors as Dartmouth > president, Kemeny, was also Jewish. > > By the way, Steven, did you see the article on the problems with the > SAT by Pam Burdman in today's Chronicle? Interesting stuff. > > Norm > > This only proves that you are a master of deceipt and deception. You cannot both be an advocate of numerical diversity, and color-blind selection. You want to have it both ways, but your proposal of random selection both lowers standards, and lowers diversity compared to conventional bakke style racial preferences, and lowers standards compared to merit only selection. To advocate that examination schools which boast students with very high grades and test scores are no better than other schools is proof of your willingness to deny the obvious, even more so than your contention that selecting the most highly qualified has no value in the education system instead of excellence through random selection. > From: Norm Matloff > To: Arthur Hu > Subject: Re: Wrong to turn away Jews, but what about Chinese? > > > [Steven:] > > > > > Dartmouth discriminated against Jews and affirmative action apartheid is > > > > supposed to serve as compensation for past discrimination. So when do the > > > > Jews get their turn? > > [Me:] > > > > Personally, I have never subscribed to the notion that affirmative > > > action should correct for past discrimination. In my view, affirmative > > > action is about CURRENT lack of participation of some groups in society, > > > and the harm that brings to not only those groups but also to soceity > > > as a whole. > > [Arthur:] > > > So the bottom line is that Lowell's policy of officially turning away > > students simply because they are Chinese is justifiable, according > > to matloff?? > > > Or is it only justifiable to turn away Chinese, but not Jews? > > Where do you read these points into what I said, Arthur? As you > know very well, I advocate that admissions policy be race-blind. > > Norm > > If I agree with you, then why do I have to spend so much time telling you that the quality of the students is ITSELF a measure of the quality of a school? And that anyone who says that Lowell isn't the best school in the SF system is a fool, or Boston Latin in Boston, or Whitney Young in Chicago is a damn fool. Why do you have to resort to even attempt to defend such nonsense.? And why do you insist that there is no difference in standards betwen an institution that takes student from the top of the pool instead of randomly selecting from a pool? Man, you really are a wacko, but then what would you expect from a man who says that Intel and Microsoft and immigrant engineers aren't important? Why don't you take a good hard look at what nonsense you are spouting? > From: Norm Matloff > To: Arthur Hu > Subject: Re: Wrong to turn away Jews, but what about Chinese? > > On Wed, Nov 12, 1997 at 08:14:48AM -0800, Arthur Hu wrote: > > > You want to have it both ways, but your proposal of random selection > > both lowers standards, and lowers diversity compared to conventional > > bakke style racial preferences, > > Again, my plan is a compromise, Arthur. And as you know, it really > doesn't lower standards. > > > To advocate that examination schools which boast students with > > very high grades and test scores are no better than other schools > > You've agreed, Arthur. > > Norm > > From: SandyElliot To: "'Arthur Hu'" Subject: RE: (Fwd) Re: Federal School To Work Page Date sent: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 12:04:20 -0800 From: Arthur Hu[SMTP:arthurhu@mail1.halcyon.com] Sent: Monday, November 03, 1997 8:56 AM Subject: (Fwd) Re: Federal School To Work Page Thanks for opening the discussion. STW is the umbrella of all school reform projects. Get and read the grant RFP from your district, or any district. LWSD #414 is in the middle of theirs. "ALL" students is the criteria, must be in the specified progr This concerns only the student half of the equation. The other half is the Business. Who determines where the student goes for training? What are the outcomes of that training? When shall that training occur (reflect on the shooting incident at Bella rning experience, or which school s/he might attend. Put your name in the hat, and perhaps we will draw yours? This is going to cost you class volunteer time. Next, $$$??? But at least more certainly higher taxes to pay for technology that matches the t What's wrong with STW??? Last but not least, it entered via a back door. Under the guise of grant dollars, administrators captured policy decision-making to accommodate the contractual relationship and compliance language of a VERY well organized Depart Let's talk!! Especially with Chambers of Commerce and AWB who bought in, Gary Smith of Independent Businessmen's Association, Builders groups BIAW. vty, SE I think this is the original address \From: mkr@merle.acns.nwu.edu (Marilyn Keller Rittmeyer) Subject: From Prof. Sandra Stotsky, Boston University http://www.ala.org/alsc/index.html association for library service to children STW is not the mother of all reform, OBE is, but STW is a logical extension of OBE of workers who aren't smart enough to do college work, but "behave" and have correct "values". ---------- Oh my !@#$%%@W$% First you said that you don't need to admit the student with the highest scores because the quality of the school doens't depend on it. Now you're telling me that as long as you had high SAT scores in high school, there abolutely no point in going to MIT instead of the University of Washington or Davis since the main reason they have high GMAT scores is because they were selected that way?? And that it makes no difference whether the school is oriented for the top 10% so that that it has lots of advanced math, science and literature classes because they have enough students to support such classes? Where do YOU think prestige comes from? You acknowlege that such a thing called prestige exists, yet you deny that it has any real meaning. Just like merit. In any city, any idiot will tell you the school with the highest test scores are considered the best, and the ones with the lowest test scores are the worst. Yet you can't comprehend such a simple concept. How can you account for this and your high level of education credentials? You are a HOPELESS case. > From: Norm Matloff > To: Arthur Hu > Subject: Re: Wrong to turn away Jews, but what about Chinese? > > On Thu, Nov 13, 1997 at 02:03:08AM -0800, Arthur Hu wrote: > > > If I agree with you, then why do I have to spend so much > > time telling you that the quality of the students is ITSELF a measure > > of the quality of a school? > > The school itself consists of its teachers, library, laboratories > and curriculum. You've agreed with me that the high 12th grade > test scores from, say, Lowell HS in SF, are due to the fact that > Lowell only admits students who have high test scores in the 8th > grade -- not because of Lowell's teachers, library, laboratories > and curriculum. > > Now, let me ask you: Given all this, what is the attraction of Lowell > to kids in SF? What does a kid get out of attending Lowell? You've > admitted that he/she gets nothing from the school itself. What it > boils down to is the kid gets one thing and only one thing: Prestige. > So, since you are a hard-right conservative who presumably does not > like government, what possible justification does government (in this > case the SF School Board) have for getting into the prestige business? > > Norm > > From: SandyElliot To: "Dan T. Mildon" <75717.1715@CompuServe.COM>, "'Arthur Hu'" , "x Sitler, Roxanne WA" Subject: RE: Partnership for Learning? Date sent: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 12:49:06 -0800 ---------- From: Arthur Hu[SMTP:arthurhu@mail1.halcyon.com] Sent: Thursday, October 30, 1997 5:38 AM To: x Sitler, Roxanne WA; Dan T. Mildon Subject: Re: Partnership for Learning? Frank Shrontz SHOULD be recognizing improvements. He certainly contributed to making them possible! Our school district has had 19 years of Boeing involvement - LWSD Board member Bob Hughes, past Boeing education consultant and employee. We have been the putrid Petri dish for every fly by night education consultant across the country come wooing with grant monies and contractual conditions affecting curriculum and classroom conditions. Their stipulations are a constant drain for local levies The result for administrators is national recognition among the educrat elitists and giant industrialist needing soulless robots. The cost is loss of classroom control and policy determination because the union reps know this "image" is worth a lot of money to the quacks. Union cooperation is purchased in labor negotiations for "whatever the union wants". And have you taken a look at the NEA's platform, lately??? Everyone gains their proscribed Outcome except the Student and Parent. Shame From: Arthur Hu[SMTP:arthurhu@mail1.halcyon.com] Sent: Thursday, October 30, 1997 5:38 AM To: x Sitler, Roxanne WA; Dan T. Mildon Subject: Re: Partnership for Learning? Frank Shrontz SHOULD be recognizing improvements. He certainly contributed to making them possible! Our school district has had 19 years of Boeing involvement - LWSD Board member Bob Hughes, past Boeing education consultant and employee. We have been t The result for administrators is national recognition among the educrat elitists and giant industrialist needing soulless robots. The cost is loss of classroom control and policy determination because the union reps know this "image" is worth a lot of mo One thing I'm starting to see with eliminating the two track system (college bound vs. working) is that college prep gets the shaft when we don't have algebra 1, or do block scheduling that makes math diappear for half a year, and get rid of rote learning and memorization. This is all for the kids who couldn't excel under the old rules, so now nobody can. > From: SandyElliot > To: "'Arthur Hu'" > Subject: RE: ncte Lang Arts & Math standards as per (Education Commi > Arthur, I'm in Lake Washington S.D. You are wrong on STW. The intent throughout the precursor-to-policy grant proposals is that ALL students will be enrolled in STW projects. Make no mistake this > se > Arthur, I'm in Lake Washington S.D. You are wrong on STW. The intent throughout the precursor-to-policy grant proposals is that ALL students will be enrolled in STW projects. Make no mistake this was the reform the buggers had in mind. Rep. John Betro se http://www.edutest.com/ From: SandyElliot Dr. Ellis at SPU has written a book on legitimate learning evaluation. "Assess" is to determine "value", not to find out what is missing from the information bank of a student. Why is the man not in the loop? Abstract/Punch line: education prof coerces students into not just using but promoting intrusive assessments; and new teaching methods, even if not themselves ideological, have ideological agenda of replacing old politically-unscreened teachers/texts with politically-correct ones. preface - as typical, I haven't read your email all the way thru due to lack of time; but I'll comment on the general point anyway. (To everyone except Arthur: he posted an article about "authentic assessment" a/k/a "alternative assessment", a trendy thing in education. SPU is Seattle Pacific Univ, a CHristian college whose education dept has been infiltrated by militantly liberal profs [some of which is being rectified]. So, FRC and Eagle Forum please FW this to your education staff (FRC: Jennifer Marshall, not sure at Eagle but your St Louis office.) (Clarifying note: since we're talking about teacher education, I'll use the word "pupil" to refer to children in K-12 schools and the word "student" to refer to those enrolled in the teacher-ed program.) SPU's teacher-ed program includes one class on authentic/alternative assessment. Apparently there are two types of portfolios: one is a set of the pupil's work compiled by the pupil and the teacher, made available only to them and the parents and nobody else unless the pupil (or presumably parent) approves or initiates. This supplements a regular report card or regular grading. I'm not sure if this type of prtfolio (for purposes of this email, I'll call this a Type 1) was mentioned in the SPU class; I learned about it from friends who teach in LA and possibly from some articles this class's prof xeroxed from professional ed journals. The other type of portfolio (I'll call Type 2) is basically a dossier or FBI file on the pupil, compiled without the full knowledge or cooperation of the pupil or of his parent. Typically the pupil is asked personal info about himself and his family - either directly or under the guise of "make a family album". The SPU prof handed out a list of things to seek from the pupil, ranging from the trivial like what's your toothpaste preference, to the very intrusive like what does your family do on weekends, what do your parents read or what TV shows do they watch. (Sandy Vanderberg, a former 45th Dist PCO and education activist, reported that somewhere on the east coast anotehr program asked for parents' signatures and social security numbers, place of employment, name/location/photo of church, mom's maiden name, grandparents' names, etc; and that all were electronically archived by the school district at their HQ.) The prof handed out copies of articles from professional ed journals advocating the efficacy of a benign type of portfolio (possibly my Type 1 or something in that ballpark). (Unlike hard science articles where you can't just print a hypothesis but have to have experimental data with controls, the articles I saw basically said "well I think this oughta work") The class was then supposed to think that the case for Type 2 portfolios had been made, and then had to support Type 2s. The prof gave her students some assignments. One was to write a paper supporting portfolios (no options was given for those who disagreed). Another, assuming that all students were doing classroom observation at some local public school, was to compile a Type 2 portfolio on a pupil. This involved at one point surreptitiously xeroxing a pupil's health record document. A third assignment was to assume that the student had graduated and was an operational teacher; write a letter to your pupils' parents explaining why portfolios are good and why you are using them in your class. My concern about this assignment is that this obviously-activist/partisan prof would take these letters that are supposedly hypothetical and use them operationally, either sending them to actual parents of actual pupils in actual classes (or their teachers), or using them within the education system as anecdotal evidence of the efficacy or popularity of portfolios. I suggested that the student address the assignments to a specific named hypothetical pupil or parent, as a mild obstacle to such misuse of the assignments; the student declined for fear of crossing the prof. The prof thus gains potential free labor for her cause, and potentially forces students to materially assist a cause they may disagree with. [Another characteristic of the SPU program: a student's progress is dependent on the subjective judgments of key profs, most of whom have ideological axes to grind; thus the profs have intimidated and gained complete control over students, who cannot disagree with or blow the whistle on the profs. I thought SPU stood for Stalinist Politically-correct Univ.] One specific point of deceptive practice: the prof had a name for her theory ("Learning Theory"? "Learning Research"?) that was carefully wordsmithed to fool the casual reader into thinking the writer was referring to the consensus of the current body of experimentally-verified scientific knowledge, when in actuality the writer was referring to the prof's untested pet beliefs/agenda. This name was to be used in the assignments, the result looking something like "the latest research proves that portfolios are good" but actually saying only "I think portfolios are good". Enough on this prof, on to a broader point: what do these and other teaching methods have to do with ideological control or imposition of orthodoxy (which I believe is now the real goal of modern public education)? By touting new methods and theories, the educrats can force the abandonment of old curricula, teachers, etc that may have not been ideologically screened/packed by the educrats, and new ones must be brought in; and these new ones have been ideologically engineered by the educrats (even in "academic basics" like reading and math - the stories and problems and examples will push some liberal point but not non-liberal views). They want to make sure no part of education is beyond their control (that's also why they oppose programs like Teach For America, homeschooling, vouchers, private schools, etc). Date sent: Thu, 13 Nov 1997 13:18:28 -0800 From: Norm Matloff To: Arthur Hu Copies to: Norm Matloff , jackpeng@juno.com, pjherz@siu.edu, sdraoul@aol.com, dchiang@sprintmail.com, dalewarner@aol.com, preacher@earthlink.net, wyll@gr.cc.wa.us, PLAUT@haas.berkeley.edu Subject: Re: Wrong to turn away Jews, but what about Chinese? > And that it makes no difference whether the school is > oriented for the top 10% so that that it has lots of advanced math, > science and literature classes because they have enough students > to support such classes? Here is what I have said about that in my articles: The case of Lowell High School mentioned earlier is even murkier. Its principal, Paul Cheng, says that one of the main factors behind the fervent desires of parents to get their kids into Lowell is the school's wide variety of advanced placement (AP) courses. These prepare students to take national AP examinations that, if passed, grant college credit. The attraction of this, Cheng points out, is parental savings in college-tuition dollars. In that case, maybe admissions priority for Lowell should be given to students intending to study at expensive colleges, rather than applicants with higher test scores. That last suggestion is of course intended to be facetious. Yet it again illustrates that "merit" is an ill-defined concept with ill-defined social goals. Norm Thanks for the forward, I can't normally send stuff from work as the number of messeges crashes the server I have at work. This is from home! Interesting that he claims that education needs to be refocused from college to vocational skills. It's becoming clear to me now that when Marc Tucker talk about eliminating tracking, it's the college track that he's really eliminating. Ironic that we're trying to emulate Japan and Germany when world-class really means countries where only half as many people complete 2 or 4 year degrees as Americans do. How many people on the loop know that over 50% of Americans start college, and over 25% of young Americqns complete a BS degree? And that the corresponding rates for Japan and Germany are only half as high? That's something that nobody brings up. We're comparing the vocational education of Hana and Franz at Mercedes Benz, when Joe Microsoft or Intel has a masters in computer science. World class computers and software means AMERICAN stuff. All this alarm when in fact we're screwing up what used to be the #1 K12/College education system in the world trying to beat competititors who send FEWER people to college than we do. Wake up people! For chrissakes, don't buy this BS. ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- From: LScheffers@aol.com Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 22:09:13 -0500 (EST) To: arthurhu@mail1.halcyon.com Subject: Fwd: [Fwd: Re: Need assistance: Willard Daggett] In a message dated 97-11-22 18:30:00 EST, fredb001@spectra.net writes: << >He'll being working next month; the money expires by September. He is >already working with disricts in North Carolina and Washington State. >> In case you're no longer receiving posts from the Loop- Lauren --------------------- Forwarded message: From: fredb001@spectra.net (Fred Battey) To: joaneb001@AOL.COM Date: 97-11-22 18:30:00 EST >Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 07:52:59 -0800 >From: "Kimberly A. Fuga" >Reply-To: kimfuga@flash.net >X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0C-KIT (Win16; I) >To: LZJOSHUA@aol.com >CC: fredb001.spectra.net >Subject: Re: Need assistance: Willard Daggett > >Detroit Free Press/Wednesday, January 18, 1994 >By: Joan Richardson >Free Press Educational Writer > >STUDENTS NEED SKILLS FOR THE REAL WORLD, REFORMER SAYS > >Microphone in hand, Willard Daggett paces the stage at Howell High >School. >In his New York hometown, he says, a fast food restaurant has replaced >counter and grill workers with high-tech machinery that takes orders, >cooks food to a customer's specifications and delivers it hot within >minutes. The food is 20 percent cheaper than at a restaurant where >people do the work. The answer, he says, is that US schools concentrate on preparing >students for college, not work. Students learn to dissect Shakespeare >but not how to read a technical manual. Schools require courses in >abstract algebra, but neglect to insist students learn statistics as >well. >"The math, science and language arts needed for entry-level employment >are higher and different that those needed for higher education," >Dagget told his Livingston audiences on a recent visit. > I'm sure that at least Tim Riordan doesn't pretend to be a Jewish Chinaman like Norman does though. > Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 14:54:52 -0500 > To: arthurhu@halcyon.com (Arthur Hu) > From: wolfdr6756@aol.com (Wolfdr6756) > Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com > Subject: Re: Pat Buchanan or NOrman Matloff #1 Chinese Immigrant hater? > I agree with you. I've been confronting this Racist Jew named Tim Riordan in > this Forum. We Asian Americans have to stick together and help one another. > Take it light. This guy Joshua Shen I heard was trying to fight the racist in > this forum also from what I gathered. > Thanks for the forward, I've just added "Public Relations" to my edreform topics page. Marc Tucker made it a major point to use modern public relations tools, and has largely succeeded in co-opting the WA press in supporting blindly the new reforms. In WA, they've gotten a "private partnership" with corporations to help pay for publicity in the form of McDonalds tray liners, and free breakfasts in hotels to invited guests. > From: "Bob&Barbara Tennison" > To: "Adam Smith" > Subject: OBE Victory? Maybe?? > Date: Sat, 22 Nov 1997 09:09:06 -0800 > >From the Eugene Register Guard - November 21, 1997...buried deep in the "B" > Section and not reported widely anywhere else. I heard a small bleep about > it on the noon news on the radio and not a word on any of the evening > Television reports. Hummmmm. > > CAMPAIGN FOR REFORMS ISN'T FUNDED > by The Associated Press > > Salem -- Members of a legislative Emergency Board subcommittee have put on > hold a request for a $1 million public relations campaign to promote > Oregon'[s education reform act. You got me. Gardener got the ball rolling, and Lowrey helped it along, now Locke is supportive, as are most state legislators. We should start sending out email to all the legislators that this stuff is toxic or something. I put the email links to the email lists on my edreform page. > Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 19:42:07 +0000 > To: arthurhu@halcyon.com > From: James Burts > Subject: Heads up does anybody have any contacts > Dear Arthur > send this out I am trying to find out what this meeting was all about the > below article on Gathering of the governors they do not say what ed program > they were raising money for and what and nobody seems to know about this in > Olympia or they are not telling. I don't know which. When it concerns > children of this state and Mike Lowery is involved it usually is not good. > If any body knows let me know I have sent the word out to try to find out. > Thank you > Julanne Burts > > > > > > > Eastside Journal > Nov 8th sat 97 > > Former Governors plan fund-raising summit > > Olympia > Washington's former governors are mixing fund raising and wisdom in a new > partnership designed to help the state's young citizens. > > Billed as a "gathering of the Governors" the five living ex Governors > will meet at the Capital on Thursday to raise money for an education > program and talk about Washington's future. It will be the first of what's > expected to be an annual meeting. > > The participants are former Govs. Albert Rosellini who served from 1957 > to 1965 Dan evans 1965-77 John Spellman 81-85 Booth Gardner 85-93 and Mike > Lowery 1993-97. > > > end of article. > > How many people notice that in the German or Japanese scheme, by the US definition, anyone that does apprenticeship is by our definition, a high school dropout, where, at least for whites and Asians, nearly 90% of Americans complete all 4 years of high school, and 2/3 start college the next year? Why would the US want to copy nations that are BEHIND the US in terms of making sure every citizen finishes a 12th grade, not a 10th grade education, and where the goal is universal college education, not universal vocational education? Why hasn't anyone raised a stink or even asked why the hell the CIM is a 10th grade credential in the first place when everybody is treating it as a diploma replacement which it CLEARLY IS NOT! How many people noticed that in Marc Tucker's original proposal, the CIM is strictly a 10th grade credential, and if you don't pass, you don't even get to take 11th and 12th grade? So far, none of the states Ore, or WA or otherwise have taken such a radical stance, Ore has added a 12th grade certificate of Advanced mastery, equal to a high school diploma, and WA's CIM amounts to nothting more than a 0/1 record of whether or not you met 10th grade "expectations" according to whatever the committee thought expectations were for that year, no need to pass 12th grade level skills to get a HS diploma. WA is no longer participating in Tucker's scheme, so it looks like his plan is already falling apart, since a CIM must be set to a national standard (that is, one set by the NCEE) to mean anything, but every state is setting it's own level, and giving its own tests. > From: "Bob&Barbara Tennison" > To: "Jeanne" > Subject: German Apprenticeship #3 > Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 13:33:02 -0800 > Part 3 > > Apprenticeship Programs in Germany > by Bruce Adams > Oregon Education Association President > December/January 1994 > > DOES AN APPRENTICESHIP PROGRAM MAKE A BETTER WORKFORCE? > > There is no question that apprentices are highly trained for a specific job > when they finish their apprenticeship. They also have training in general > Hi all, I've managed to scan in some of the huge pile of documents that were sent to me by the Northeast Advocacy Network 33-3 Herbert St Monteplier Vermont 05602 tracking how the "music man" Mark Tucker came town and sold WA state legislators on his grand scheme to reform education. I'll need volunteers who read this to key this in so that we can get text or html versions of these documents. Egghead may still have those $30 scanner/ocr software combos for anyone who wants to play around with automatic conversion. I just called the Commision on Student Learning, and found out that for the past couple of years, they've broken off of Tucker's initiative. Without central control of grade standards, or the definition of a CIM, the CIM will be worthless, and nobody appears to have adopted his radical vision that the CIM would be gatekeeper for 11th and 12 grade with a free 1st year of college. Everybody should read his original proposal, the fact that nobody is accepting his original ideas uncut is proof there's something seriously wrong here. I think his grand scheme is already starting to slowly fall apart as states each fashion their own version of Tucker-based education(TBE) which is a bastardized version of OBE.

Time Line

http://www.leconsulting.com/arthurhu/images/972/a111297/washed/ Page0001.html Oct 4, 1991 Ad Hoc Group: Process for Setting Standards, proposal Marc Tucker Talk on new performance based tests http://www.leconsulting.com/arthurhu/images/972/a111297/exec92/Page00 01.html Executive summary for "performance-oriented" schools http://www.leconsulting.com/arthurhu/images/972/a111297/prop92/P age0001.html Feb 13, 1992 Marc Tucker completes the proposal, WA signs on June 8, 1992
  • May 1993 Passed ESHB 1209 to codify contract between Marc Tucker and Washington state to implement new assessment system. The Commision on Public Learning is just a PR to hide that it's really Marc Tucker's New Standards project and make it look like it is locally controlled. http://www.leconsulting.com/arthurhu/images/972/a111297/washed/ Page0001.html Documents: Washington State Joins Marc Tucker's New Education Reform Movement 1991-1992 "address public relations issues involving education restructuring and the New Standards Project, the assessment component of the multi-state education Design Team based in Rochester NY. Marc Tucker David Hornbeck (both formerly with the Carnegie Foundation), David Rockefeller Jr, Hillary Clinton, Ira Magaziner and Mario Cuomo are on the board of Trustees. Hillary Clinton is also on the board of the New Standards Project. In order to be in compliance with the contract signed by Benzel, Billings and Gardner in June 1992, the Mark Tucker / David Hornbeck Design Team / New Standards Project elements were codified in ESHB 1209, the Performance-Based Education Restructuring legislation that was signed into law by Mike Lowry http://www.leconsulting.com/arthurhu/images/972/a111297/stwwa/P age0001.html June 13, 1994 Certificate of Initial Mastery Seattle Meeting I believe we need to coin a term "TBE" for Tucker-Based Education, his organization is the one primarily responsible for combining "performance-based" testing with high "academic" standards. The dumbing down comes from new english and math standards which emphasize "higher order" thinking at the expense of facts, but the tests appear to combine both. The vermont example that went around the net showed that under the new frameworks, "problem solving" scores were equal or better, but basic skills went down the drain. The main reason for new tests which skip over basic skills and refuse to score by percentile appears to to avoid comparison with the "old" standards. The fact that the resulting tests really hammer minorities reflects how the one part of the left doesn't know what the other is doing when at least in WA state, african American groups aren't at all happy with results which turned out to be far MORE disparate than the old tests, and the assumption that differences are based on cultural bias rather than the inherent difficulty of the test is being shown to be dead wrong. The new tests are in some ways, even more highly "g-loaded" than most of the do it yourself IQ tests that I've seen. One of the key features of "authentic" assessment, and FairTest's criticisms of the SAT are racial bias, but these people are so clueless, they don't notice that score differentials are even greater. When the CLAS test came out, there was NO mention in any article in any newspaper of the huge gulf in racial performance. In WA, it was met with the standard "well, we've got work to do" without any controversy over whether or not the test was unfairly biased, or in fact more harmful to minorities, which it is demonstrably is. > From: Rovarose@aol.com > Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 16:13:25 -0500 (EST) > To: EDUCATION-CONSUMERS@tricon.net > Subject: "Assessment in the Classroom" > Dr. George Cunningham, > > Your comments the other day regarding a basic difference between > "progressives" who favored OBE and "STW influences" were extremely > interesting, though a little disorienting to me. > > Your description of how the drive to get rid of multiple choice questions > boomeranged on the progressives reminded me of what I read about changes in > SAT format a few years ago. There had been pressure to do away with > questions that ask students to check off correct antonyms, synonyms, etc. > > The SAT responded by substituting difficult reading passages, then asking > questions that required comprehension. If anything, it made the test more > difficult, both to design and to pass, IMO, and didn't "dumb down", at all. > > But who exactly constitute the "STW crowd"? I presume they are in state > DOE's, and got there via the education campuses. I thought I had the > ideology figured out: collectivists (whether "humanist"/socialist or > theocrats) on one side, individualists on the other. > > Are the STW people younger liberals who see the absurdity of a content-less > curriculum, or are they sponsored by a well-meaning business clique that just > doesn't understand the problem? Is there dissention between the two groups > within education departments? > > As a non-educator, my interest in the actual nuts and bolts of testing is > perfunctory. But I am very eager to grasp the ideology of it all. Does > your book (subject line, above) address this aspect? > > Sincerely, > > Bob > EDUCATION CONSUMERS CLEARINGHOUSE > With standardized tests at each grade, the figure you want is the percentile ranking. If the class starts out at say, the 60th percentile, then it would be higher, or lower depending on how well they did compared with the rest of the country. I believe the ACT's were "recentered" a year or so ago, but from here on in, just compare scores for each senior year, ACT has scores for every school. > From: LYTK73A@prodigy.com (MRS COLEEN C ARY) > Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 12:36:18, -0500 > To: arthurhu@mail1.halcyon.com > Subject: ACT testing > Arthur, > > Could you respond to Margaret about how to compare ACT scores? > > Thanks > Coleen > > > << Start of Forwarded message via Prodigy Mail >> > > From: "Ben Sitte" > Subject: Internet Message > Date: 11/28 > Time: 07:42 PM > > Return-Path: > Received: from spectra.net (root@blue.spectra.net [204.177.130.1]) > by pimaia3w.prodigy.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id TAA53576; > Fri, 28 Nov 1997 19:39:57 -0500 > Received: from fredb001 (pm145-131.spectra.net [204.177.131.145]) by > spectra.net (8.8.3/8.8.3) with SMTP id TAA13497; Fri, 28 Nov 1997 > 19:37:19 -0500 > Message-Id: <3.0.1.32.19971128190047.0074871c@mail.spectra.net> > X-Sender: fredb001@mail.spectra.net > X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) > Date: Fri, 28 Nov 1997 19:00:47 -0500 > To: joaneb001@aol.com > From: "Ben Sitte" (by way of Fred Battey > ) > Subject: Need help: alternative/block scheduling info > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > Please respond directly to Margaret, cc the rest of us. Fred > > I would like help on how to counteract the block system. I teach at > a > Christian school which has been using it for three years, and I am > convinced we are decreasing actual learning time. Now I need > statistics and > data. Please send me whatever information you have. We will be > deciding in > January whether or not to renew. > Also give me some ideas as to how I can compare test scores to be > statistically accurate. For ex., I am planning to compare ACT scores > over > the past 10 years, and to take one class and follow its progress > statistically through standardized tests in grades 6, 8 and 11. Any > other > ideas? > > Margaret Sitte > > > << End of Forwarded message >> > > ____ > Coleen Ary, Editor > PIE National Newsletter > 690-A Los Angeles Avenue #232 > Simi Valley, CA 93065 > (805) 581-6169 > (805) 581-1956 fax > LYTK73A@prodigy.com > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * > Carolyn Steinke, Executive Director > PARENTS INVOLVED IN EDUCATION > Central Office > P.O. Box 3004 > Palm Desert, CA 92261 > (760) 772-0145 > (760) 772-0195 fax > From: HOFPAT@aol.com Date sent: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 22:25:20 -0500 (EST) To: education-consumers@tricon.net Subject: Task Force Last night after the task force meeting I presented my 18 page review of the K-3 curriculum to the elementary superintendent. The cover page stated that I listed item by item all the areas from each subject the district has not introduced or taught to my daughter who is now in the third grade. After the meeting the superintendent told me that he has addressed the need to eliminate some of the content of the curriculum because the teachers just cannot get to everything. I guess we are correct about "watering it down." I think they need to eliminate the arts and crafts program. My friend called me today to tell me that the superintendent and some of the other administrators were having a big meeting with the principal when she was at the school. The curriculum guide listed about 100 spelling words the first graders were to learn to spell. My daughter is now learning those words as "priority words" in third grade, along with words from a third grade book. I also provided copies of her writings from the messy journal she writes in everyday. Sloppy handwriting, invented spelling, poor sentence structure, all uncorrected. The school year is nearing midpoint and she shows no improvement in her independent writing skills. The district does not use a text, it may stifle her creativity. I think the district is really afraid these children may just learn to write. Gloria Hoffman Cumberland Valley School District Mechanicsburg, PA EDUCATION CONSUMERS CLEARINGHOUSE From: gkcunn01@ulkyvm.louisville.edu Date sent: Wed, 26 Nov 1997 21:28:36 -0500 To: "Arthur Hu" Subject: Re: Fwd: Colorado (successful Core Knowledge results) At 09:46 AM 11/26/97 -0800, you wrote: >Thank God, I'm not the only guy smart enough to have figured out >that these tests are too damn hard, not dumbed down. What we >have are tests that are too hard, and curriculums that are dumbed >down, and a coming train wreck when people try to apply these >top 20% proficiency standards to graduation standards, and not >everybody magically "performs to expectations". > >How did you figure out the WA failure minority rates, you must have >actually looked at the analysis I put out, nobody else in WA >outside of the State Dept of Ed actually has these figures. > >The MEDIAN level of performance was a "1" = understands >next to nothing. > I read it in an article that appeared in the Seattle Times written by Jolayne Houtz. It was sent to a listserve over the internet, but has no date. The same thing is happening all over, but most states don't report results separately for minorities for obvious reasons. Colorada officials are giddily happy about how poorly their students did on their test. They think this shows how good their test is. Actually it is not that difficult to make a test too difficult. George K. Cunningham University of Louisville Date sent: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 08:48:39 -0500 From: KEISIOUX <75713.1375@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: go get Seattle times paper heads up To: "Arthur Hu" I got a copy of the Times report from Bartells. They didn't have many left, I'm not sure if they had more in the back room. It's not real informative to the average parent - a lot of the red flags are glossed over or left unexplained, like what performance-based education really means, or what the New American Schools Developemtn Corp really is up to. US News did the same in an article in Sept purporting to explain a lot of the new education terminology and fads. Date sent: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 08:48:46 -0500 From: KEISIOUX <75713.1375@compuserve.com> Subject: RE: new model to frame public-ed debate: the draft To: arthur hu per below, Sandy Elliott asks me to relay this to you re a good prof at SPU and some bad goings-on at the state. ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- From: SandyElliot, INTERNET:elliot96@accessone.com TO: "'KEISIOUX'", [75713,1375] DATE: 11/24/97 11:42 AM RE: RE: new model to frame public-ed debate: the draft Sender: elliot96@accessone.com Received: from accessone.com (blaze.accessone.com [198.68.191.19]) by hil-img-1.compuserve.com (8.8.6/8.8.6/2.9) with ESMTP id LAA28972 for <75713.1375@compuserve.com>; Mon, 24 Nov 1997 11:42:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from kirk03-7.accessone.com (kirk03-7.accessone.com [209.43.128.103]) by accessone.com (8.8.5/8.8.5/PIH) with SMTP id IAA27803 for <75713.1375@compuserve.com>; Mon, 24 Nov 1997 08:41:46 -0800 (PST) Received: by kirk03-7.accessone.com with Microsoft Mail id <01BCF8B4.F3E7FCC0@kirk03-7.accessone.com>; Mon, 24 Nov 1997 08:42:52 -0800 Message-ID: <01BCF8B4.F3E7FCC0@kirk03-7.accessone.com> From: SandyElliot To: "'KEISIOUX'" <75713.1375@compuserve.com> Subject: RE: new model to frame public-ed debate: the draft Date: Mon, 24 Nov 1997 08:42:51 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable SMTP:75713.1375@compuserve.com] Sent: Friday, November 21, 1997 12:44 AM To: SandyElliot Subject: RE: new model to frame public-ed debate: the draft thanks Sandy - I just came across Cris's business card from a few years ago. Do they have email? NO Which legislator? I have a bit of a working relationship with Harold Hochstatter, may be able to start one with Kathy Lambert, and I assume you have Mike Sherstad covered. Back in April I suggested to Sen Hochstatter that we look into SPI's requirements for teacher-cert and for cert of teacher-ed programs, and see if there was political requirements being effected (unintentionally or otherwise) via SPI in those ways. An example is that teacher-ed programs must include a multicultural* element; obviously that's ripe for abuse and that's the kind of thing we want to look into, to see if they're exceeding statutory authority or if we can otherwise nullify or restrict such requirements. I haven't really followed up on it. Got any tips? (Sandy replies:) You have a thread here to pick up. The State School Board has to go back to the Legislature for approval of the new certification. This needs to be looked into *Remind me to make copies of my wife's multicultural-ed textbook, it has some amazing and sickening themes and passages. Basically, it says the whole educational system must be hijacked to indoctrinate and activate students for political action and social change. The title, in case you run across it, is Multicultural Education: Issues and Perspectives, 2nd ed, edited by a couple from UW, James A. Banks and Cherry A. McGee Banks. (Sandy replies:) What comes out of UofW is Goodlad's pursuit. He is a first rate communist if you read his intentions. He also wrote the new criteria for teacher certification. Bet you find Banks in cahoots. I am encouraging legislators to be "good consumers" and get an unattached second opinion on all testing and "new directives" Arthur K. Ellis professor at SPU being one. He is from our state. A very concerned citizen, and top notch teacher as per a friend who graduated with a masters in teaching from SPU. See Research on Educational Innovations, second edition. I will catch you later. Please pass this info on Ellis to Arthur Hu. I've had out of town family who are looking for a home here in Seattle; and I need to attend to them this day, yet. Then I hope to be back with you.--se I found the phone number to this guy, and he's already in my index. Are there any WA legislators willing to shoot down the commision on student learning? It has to killed and stopped, it's ruining education. People are fighting federal education when right now, state-run education is the 2nd worse thing, and it's going on right under people's noses, while there's hell to pay at the federal level. > Date: If you look at the notes I've posted from Marc Tucker's visit to Seattle, he is clearly against tracking. Yet we are copying a system far worse than the US in terms of tracking.Anybody else noticed this glaring inconsistnecy in TBE (Tucker Based Education?) The purpose of testing in Germany and Japan is to SEPARATE OUT STUDENTS INTO TRACKS, not Tucker's silly way to pretend that all students performed at an equally high level that got an CIM. There is NO SUCH THING AS GOOD ENOUGH. What you have are a limited number of slots and COMPETITION (ohmigod, I said that word) determines how good is good enough. Which is why we need ranking, percentile, norm-reference, and all that. Any attempt to create an educationally classless society IS JUST PLAIN STUPID. You will NEVER EVER get all students to perform at the same level, this would be a world where there would be no difference in students that went to community college, state college, or state U or MIT because the CIM said that they were all "proficient" in everything. Yeah, right. MARC TUCKER: US HAS MOST VICIOUS TRACKING SYSTEM IN THE WORLD (?) http://www.leconsulting.com/arthurhu/images/972/A111297/washed/p05.gi f "Will mean the end to tracking. "The US has now the most insidious and vicious tracking system in the technological world" Notes from September 20, 1991 Ad Hoc Group: Process for Setting Standards. Marc Tucker Talk in seattle WA. > From: "Bob&Barbara Tennison" > To: "Jeanne" > GERMAN EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM TRACKING > > All German students attend neighborhood schools until the 4th grade. The 5th > and 6th grades are spend in a transition school where teachers evaluate the > students. > > At the end of the 6th grade, teachers recommend each student to one of three > tracks. One track aims toward the university. Another track aims at an > apprenticeship at 9th or 10th grade. The middle track aims at an > apprenticeship sometime after the 10th grade and/or more advance technical > training. > > Each of these tracks is a separate school. > > From: "Bob&Barbara Tennison" To: Subject: Response: "Assessment in the Classroom" Date sent: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 10:12:04 -0800 Bob, If I may make a comment on the SAT. The antonym and synonym section of the SAT was removed because our school system no longer teaches English Grammar. My son (11th) grade just took the SAT and he said it was soooo easy. He compared what he did with what his brother tested on in 1995 and both agreed the test has be altered to make it easier to pass. The reading section is designed to measure "critical thinking," not comprehension. My son said, "Mom, it was silly." Just an observation from a very bright 11th grader who loves to read and who does comprehend what he reads. I went to the high school and requested a copy of the SAT pre-test given prior to 1994 and the current pre-test. Lucky for me the school still had a couple of copies of the old test around. I was shocked at the difference. That is not to say that I didn't find both tests challenging, they were just different in that the current test included little or no English Grammar and the math section was not what I consider "college" level. Consider that students are given extra time to complete the SAT, may use a calculator to compute the math and the bell curve has been realigned to inflate test scores. Now you can see the pattern. The question to ask is: "Is this a fair assessment and random sampling of the academic knowledge at student has acquired in 11 years of schooling. The answer of course is no, as the language arts teachers spend the entire first six weeks of school "preparing kids for the SAT, thereby robbing them of valuable learning time in the actual language arts class. As a parent, I suggest the government school begin preparing kids for the SAT while they are in elementary school, give them basic academic knowledge and build on that knowledge from year to year, making each subject more difficult as students mature and learn. If this were done, students across the country would ace the SAT's and we would see a movement by the SAT developers to make the test more challenging, not less. I would like to address the issue of the STW crowd and do so from personal experience in my own school district. This is my personal opinion and is not meant to imply that others might agree with me. In our district it doesn't fit the liberal or conservative mode. Some of the most liberal folks I know are right in the middle of the battle with their conservative counterparts. In our district the STW crowd are elected and former elected officials and business people who happen to be Democrats and liberal. They believe they are personally "leading" the way for the rest of the community. These folks go to OBE/STW seminars for indoctrination, are appointed to sit on the site councils, budget committees and are elected to the school board. These are the folks who can afford to send their chidden to private schools or send them off to the local community college for additional classes that are not taught at our high school. (such as English Grammar, Algebra I and II) Their children are the Club presidents, class presidents and identified as Talented and Gifted. They are business people who allow their children to job shadow with district superintendent, lawyers, doctors and such, while the less affluent kids are sent off to the local machine shops or hotels and restaurants to learn the travel industry trade (you know, making beds, cleaning toilets and waiting tables). Some of the STW/OBE crowd are [admitted] socialist and admit to being "very far left," (whatever that means) and they believe that education must change and that we must become a community of partners, with them as the leaders and the rest of us as the followers. I haven't found a single member of the STW/OBE crowd who is well informed on both sides of the issue, who has done any research to show that the programs they are advocating have any validly or have been successful anywhere. They don't want to look at validated research (much of it coming from college professors and school teachers), they simply spew the current party line as it is handed to them by the school officials and teachers (yes, there are a few who have embraced the STW idea) and continue on their way in blissful ignorance. Anyone in our community who has the tenacity to question "their" ideas is labeled radical, far right, religious right or just to stupid and ignorant to know what is best for their own kids. You see, these folks really believe that when the big event happens they are going to be in charge and their children will be the "true" leaders of the next generation. They will do whatever it takes to ensure that "their" kids are receiving an appropriate academic education (private school, tutors, community college pick-up classes) and they can afford financially to follow through, while some of us do not have that luxury. That's what I see happening in our district, I can not speak for other districts, but then we are a small community of just over 7500 people and 60% or those people live at or below the poverty line and the majority have only a high school education or less. Regards, Barbara -----Original Message----- From: Rovarose@aol.com To: EDUCATION-CONSUMERS@tricon.net Date: Saturday, November 29, 1997 1:23 PM Subject: "Assessment in the Classroom" >Dr. George Cunningham, > >Your comments the other day regarding a basic difference between >"progressives" who favored OBE and "STW influences" were extremely >interesting, though a little disorienting to me. > >Your description of how the drive to get rid of multiple choice questions >boomeranged on the progressives reminded me of what I read about changes in >SAT format a few years ago. There had been pressure to do away with >questions that ask students to check off correct antonyms, synonyms, etc. > >The SAT responded by substituting difficult reading passages, then asking >questions that required comprehension. If anything, it made the test more >difficult, both to design and to pass, IMO, and didn't "dumb down", at all. > >But who exactly constitute the "STW crowd"? I presume they are in state >DOE's, and got there via the education campuses. I thought I had the >ideology figured out: collectivists (whether "humanist"/socialist or >theocrats) on one side, individualists on the other. > >Are the STW people younger liberals who see the absurdity of a content-less >curriculum, or are they sponsored by a well-meaning business clique that just >doesn't understand the problem? Is there dissention between the two groups >within education departments? > >As a non-educator, my interest in the actual nuts and bolts of testing is >perfunctory. But I am very eager to grasp the ideology of it all. Does >your book (subject line, above) address this aspect? > >Sincerely, > >Bob >EDUCATION CONSUMERS CLEARINGHOUSE > EDUCATION CONSUMERS CLEARINGHOUSE Do the Germans want to brag that 65% of their kids are on the vocational track missing out on 11th and 12 gradde when 65% of our kids are going on to college AFTER completing 12 full years of education? How come I'm the only looper that figured this out? Come on folks, get on the ball, this stuff is even MORE stupid than you think it is. Let those guys have it, don't let them get away with ANY stupid assumptions. We are copying !@#$% nations that are F----king BEHIND OUR STANDARDS!!!! > From: "Bob&Barbara Tennison" > To: "Fred & Joan" > Subject: Saving America's Children > Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 01:06:23 -0800 > The board of examiners is established by the autonomous organizations of > trade and industry. In Germany. we call this 'The Chambers.' In 1987, for > example, more than 1.8 million young people were enrolled in vocational > training programs. This means that about 65% of all our students were > enrolled. > So what's the point of a 10th grade credential, if not to split kids off into vocational or academic tracks, as is the case in Germany? In the US STW scheme, it serves absolutely no purpose at all since both tracks supposedly require passing the CIM, and there is no other test to sort out who goes where. If everybody goes on the vocational track, what's the point of that??? How come other loopers aren't jumping all over this major boo boo in translating the German system to here? What we've got here is frankenstein's monster of OBE mixed in with German and japanese models, plus Tucker's own touch. > From: "Bob&Barbara Tennison" > To: > Subject: Re: German Apprenticeship #3 > Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 23:49:31 -0800 > Art, > > Correction, Oregon HAS adopted the CIM as a 10th grade requirement. > Beginning this school year, ALL schools will begin to implement the CIM at > grade 10. The implementation timeline has been slowed so that it will not be > fully implemented until the year 2002 but it is "THE LAW" in Oregon. > > By law, for the time being a diploma will still be issues but students MUST > earn a CIM at about age 16 or grade ten. The 11th and 12th grade program is > a diploma with a CAM endorsement. The CAM endorsement allegedly signifies > that students have taken a more rigorous integrated academic course of > study. What it really means is the students "chose" a career strand, did an > job shadow or apprenticeship and jumped through the OBE/STW hoop. > > My son (11th grade) is in the traditional program (no CAM endorsement > required for his class) He takes a full load of alleged academics, meaning > he does not STW or job shadowing. Everything else is the same. > > It is all a crock. But the CIM is the law in Oregon, I assure you. It begins > at kindergarten and finishes at grade ten. No public school child is exempt > beginning this school year. We have sworn testimony to this as well as the > law. > > Regards, > Barbara > -----Original Message----- > From: Arthur.Hu@halcyon.com > To: Jeanne ; Bob&Barbara Tennison > Date: Saturday, November 29, 1997 5:26 PM > Subject: Re: German Apprenticeship #3 > > > How many people notice that in the German or Japanese scheme, > by the US definition, anyone that does apprenticeship is by our > definition, a high school dropout, where, at least for whites and > Asians, nearly 90% of Americans complete all 4 years of high school, > and 2/3 start college the next year? Why would the US want to copy > nations that are BEHIND the US in terms of making sure every citizen > finishes a 12th grade, not a 10th grade education, and where the > goal is universal college education, not universal vocational > education? > > Why hasn't anyone raised a stink or even asked why the > hell the CIM is a 10th grade credential in the first place when > everybody is treating it as a diploma replacement which it CLEARLY IS > NOT! > > How many people noticed that in Marc Tucker's original proposal, > the CIM is strictly a 10th grade credential, and if you don't pass, > you don't even get to take 11th and 12th grade? So far, none of the > states Ore, or WA or otherwise have taken such a radical stance, Ore > has added a 12th grade certificate of Advanced mastery, equal to a > high school diploma, and WA's CIM amounts to nothting more than > a 0/1 record of whether or not you met 10th grade "expectations" > according to whatever the committee thought expectations were for > that year, no need to pass 12th grade level skills to get a HS > diploma. WA is no longer participating in Tucker's scheme, so it > looks like his plan is already falling apart, since a CIM must be set > to a national standard (that is, one set by the NCEE) to mean > anything, but every state is setting it's own level, and giving its > own tests. > > > From: "Bob&Barbara Tennison" > > To: "Jeanne" > > Subject: German Apprenticeship #3 > > Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 13:33:02 -0800 > > > Part 3 > > > > Apprenticeship Programs in Germany > > by Bruce Adams > > Oregon Education Association President > > December/January 1994 > > > > DOES AN APPRENTICESHIP PROGRAM MAKE A BETTER WORKFORCE? > > > > There is no question that apprentices are highly trained for a specific > job > > when they finish their apprenticeship. They also have training in general > > > > > EDUCATION CONSUMERS CLEARINGHOUSE > Date sent: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 18:03:56 -0800 From: Dianne Cassidy Send reply to: cassidy@pacifier.com To: education-consumers@tricon.net Subject: Re: Response: "Assessment in the Classroom" Barbara Tennison wrote: > Anyone in our community who has the tenacity to question "their" ideas is > labeled radical, far right, religious right or just to stupid and ignorant > to know what is best for their own kids. You see, these folks really believe > that when the big event happens they are going to be in charge and their > children will be the "true" leaders of the next generation. They will do > whatever it takes to ensure that "their" kids are receiving an appropriate > academic education (private school, tutors, community college pick-up > classes) and they can afford financially to follow through, while some of us > do not have that luxury. > > That's what I see happening in our district, I can not speak for other > districts, but then we are a small community of just over 7500 people and > 60% or those people live at or below the poverty line and the majority have > only a high school education or less. What Barbara says is true. My community has the highest SES in the state, and many people with school-age children or younger moved here because of the district's reputation for great schools. Of course, many parents have been able to afford tutors, extra classes, SAT prep courses, summer enrichment classes and even private schools. Even here, the grumbling is becoming louder about the declining quality of education, and it is difficult if not impossible to find a qualified math tutor if you don't already have one. The STW issue is completely unknown here, and so far the district has only organized a 1-day job-shadow experience for 8th and 10th graders. No other STW program has been introduced...yet. The superintendent knows that the professional crowd will not tolerate an education that looks like vocational training or work experience. My guess is that when the state requires it for the Certificate of Advanced Mastery (gr. 11 & 12) he will try to disguise it in the form of community service or tie in to internships some of the kids are already doing. My point is -- if the school district (via state regulations) tried to force voc-ed onto the college-bound youth of the well-to-do, there would be a massive exodus from the public school system. As long as choice exists, people who have the means will use them to protect their children from what they perceive as a threat to their well-being. I think this scenario is true just about anywhere for a variety of reasons. The only people left in the system would be those who could not find a way to get out. If STW truely means ALL students, then I believe that it's downfall will only come when ALL children are threatened -- not just those who can't escape. Our superintendent keeps saying that the system must suit student needs. He cites districts in the state in predominately blue-collar towns that have incorporated full job-training and STW practices as part of the school day for all their students. He justifies this as being correct for THEM, but says that kind of a system will not be correct for US. (One such school is David Douglas High School, named by the NCREL as a "New American School.") Perhaps the parents there would not like to hear his rationalizations, but this certainly calms the nerves of local parents who might wonder what is happening to education. Certainly nothing like that could happen here! Just as the Viet Nam war came to a close soon after all college deferments were abolished and ALL young men over 18 were faced with the lottery draft system, so too will STW fade when (and if) the children of the CEO's, senators, educators, and even presidents share the same fate as those they would like to control. Will this ever happen? Will all students have access to the same types of STW opportunities? Will education be even more thoroughly stratified so that it will become impossible for those who start out in a poor district to overcome their fate? These concerns may be overly dramatic... or they may not. Your thoughts anyone? The CAM is scheduled to be a requirement in 4 years for all high schools in Oregon. I doubt that our district will require a CIM or a CAM for graduation, but the state colleges will require them. Again, the wealthy can afford to go elsewhere if they have to. Dianne Cassidy Lake Oswego, OR EDUCATION CONSUMERS CLEARINGHOUSE This looks worse each time I look at it. The Germans and Japanese clearly split their kids into tracks. I thought you guys were only joking when you said that EVERY kid will be on a vocational track, but it's looking like they really are gutting the college track and forcing voc on everyone. Whose bright idea was this? We're clearly stealing the basic idea from the Germans but then adding this distinctly Ameican liberal "let's get rid of tracking" idea. From what I gleaned from the internet, the CIM/CAM will replace the diploma, and if you don't pass all CAM requirements, you won't get a HS diploma, or get a job or go to college that requires one. I can't wait to see how badly Washingon screws up their COM. Fortunateloy, it looks like there aren't many states following through with Tucker's original idea, and WA and Ore have already strayed far from his original vision. > Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 18:03:56 -0800 > From: Dianne Cassidy > Reply-to: cassidy@pacifier.com > To: education-consumers@tricon.net > Subject: Re: Response: "Assessment in the Classroom" > Barbara Tennison wrote: > What's the url? What's this, I missed the part about a work requirement. Are you kidding? You're going to have to have held down a school-to-work job even if you go to college? In Germany, only the voc-track students have to do this. > Date: Mon, 01 Dec 1997 12:33:43 -0800 > From: Dianne Cassidy > Reply-to: cassidy@pacifier.com > To: Arthur.Hu@halcyon.com > Cc: education-consumers@tricon.net > Subject: Re: Why the !@#$% are we sending college kids on the vocational trac > To all: > Arthur Hu wrote to me and I am sharing my response with you all. > > Arthur: > > The whole play has not yet been performed, so I don't know how it will > end. All I have to go on for facts are what the government bodies > produce in the way of laws and regulations. I check gov. sources to see > what is actually required and what is being planned. So far, in Oregon, > there seems to be several ways of accomplishing the goals of workforce > training. Ie: job-shadowing, internships, community service, work > experience, etc. Some of these options may be more palatalbe to parents > and students than others, but all together, they represent a melding of > vocational and academic education. They also create a huge difference > in how communities will educate students, and some will be left in the > voc-ed trac because economics and geography have placed them in the > wrong school. The differences between rich and poor won't end -- they > may just be intensified. > > I personally don't want anyone subjectively evaluating my son on his > personal qualities (like ability to work in a group) to become part of > his high school record. I also don't believe that a child of 14-18 > should have to be proficient in public speaking in order to earn a place > in a public university. When I was young I had a fear of public > speaking (still do), and I still stutter when I become frightened. > Should I have been forced to speak in from of groups at age 16 in order > to get a CIM (and get into college), how would I have done? Should shy > or anxious students be banned from higher ed. no matter what their > intellectual capabilities? This is the LAW in Oregon as it stands now. > Sure it sounds ridiculous, but it's there. This is just one example of > the ridiculous effort to make all students proficient in all areas -- > not just academically qualified -- to go on. Kids who mature early will > certainly have an advantage under the new system. > > I was at the U of Washington 2 weeks ago at a conference for 7-9th > graders and their parents. The parents had a session with the associate > dir. of admissions for the university and the issue of CIM's and > portfolios came up. Dr. Swiney flatly stated that they had no use for > portfolios, but that they were being required by the WA state > legislature to come up with a way to handle the CIM's. Sounds like they > don't want them but will have to accomodate them, but don't yet have a > way to do that. He also added that the school will continue to accept > students who do not have a diploma (or a CIM?) such as homeschoolers who > can prove proficiency in core areas by other means... SAT II tests > and/or community college courses. So far the door is open now, but the > legislature could close that too. > > I was at my high school advisory committee meeting last week and we > invited a district administrator to come to talk with us about > preparation for the CIM/CAM/PASS (Oregon's new college entrance process > tied to CIM's) and STW. Mr. Smith brushed aside concerns that students > might have to be required to have work experience and said that our > district would create a "knowledge-based" experience that would apply > and be more suitable for college-bound youth. (80% of our kids go on to > college.) He would not elaborate, and said that he felt the CAM and STW > requirements would fail of their own accord, but he could give no > assurances. As for now, the laws are still on the books, and his may be > wishful thinking. At any rate, I am still very uncomfortable with the > requirements that would subjectively rate youngsters on non-academic > criteria no matter how it is done. > > At this same meeting I passed out about a dozen handouts for fellow > members who were clueless about what the federal and state laws are. I > copied only from government websites so that what they were looking at > was actual requirements and evaluations of planning that is being done. > I hope they read the papers -- they should give an entirely different > picture of what is in store for the state. Perhaps they feel insulated > living in this community-- after all, we will have a "knowledge-based" > system more in tune with our values. I hope they read between the lines > to see beyond our city limits. > > BTW, I believe the knowledge-based system will develop as a senior > capstone project combining community service and research into an > interdisciplinary topic that kids will present to a committee. Just a > hunch, but I've seen the writing on the wall for a few years now that > this is what our superintendent would like to have -- he'll just use the > CAM/STW requirement as a way to make it happen. > > I am continuing to investigate government sources and the tangental > players in this production -- it is difficult when you are trying to hit > a moving target. Things change, interpretations of the law are not > clearly defined, and some changes are planned for the future that we can > only guess at. My experience tells me that changes are being done > slowly, in increments that people will agree to, but I expect more to > follow. If some (read savvy, powerful, wealthy) people can avoid the > worst effects of this new system, will they be a voice for or against > change? > > > Dianne Cassidy > Lake Oswego, OR > > PS: If anyone would like to see the handouts I gave to my committee, > they are all available on the internet and I would be happy to share the > URL's with you, though they are mostly specific to Oregon. > > EDUCATION CONSUMERS CLEARINGHOUSE > From: cjo@ior.com Date sent: Tue, 02 Dec 1997 11:44:41 -0500 To: "Arthur Hu" Subject: Re: Test meeting at AG Bell Dec 2 tonight Go get 'em! I'll pray for open minds to receive the truth you present. Thanks for getting in the fray. Cindy (Spokane) I'll add these names and info to my edreform page, which is organized alphabetically like an encyclopedia. Judith Billings has been superseded in Washington state by Terry Bergeson, who used to head the Commision on Student Learning, which as formed to implement the Tucker vision in 1993. Tucker was also the author of an award-winning book http://www.edweek.org/ (search) \clip\97\28\rootbran.txt Education Week September 16, 1992 Changing the System, Root and Branch By Ray Marshall and Marc Tucker ( From Thinking for a Living: Education and the Wealth of Nations by Ray Marshall and Marc Tucker. Copyright 1992 by Basic Books. Reprinted with the permission of Basic Books, a division of HarperCollins Publishers Inc. ) You might also want to note that George Bush started a lot of this stuff, and the SCANS report was created by none other than Elizabeth Dole. pass this on to the loop for me. > From: "Bob&Barbara Tennison" > To: "Fred & Joan" > Subject: Marc Tucker, et.al. (LONG) > Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 12:16:24 -0800 > Hello Everyone, > > I am once again tackling some 20 boxes of OBE information that has recently > come into my possession. The boxes hold a wealth of information that I > would like to share. Some of it is for your information only and other parts > I hope will encourage a dialog among the many "loop" members. > > The first is a 1994 post from a Washington State source. The post is a list > of the "players" in education reform up to that time and what was know about > them and their involvement. If any of you know that the information I have > posted on any of these people is not correct, please let me know so I may > correct my records. > > Let's add to the list and make a bibliography of all the "players." As you > can see there are some names that aren't mentioned often and some names that > are missing. Let us all research our files, at our connivance and add to > these names as well as adding additional names, such as Bill Spady, James > Hunt, Mario Cuomo, William Daggett and anyone else that we can connect with > the different programs. Some of this has been done in chart form, but I > haven't seen a complete list of who these people are, where they came from > and how they are inter-connected through committees and forums. I think that > information would be valuable. > > If everyone will post what they can gleen form their research and post it to > the loop, I will print it and compile it into a readable format for everyone > to use. > > Enjoy --- BET > > THE PLAYERS: EDUCATION REFORM MOVEMENT > > MARC TUCKER: > > * National Center on Education and the Economy (NCEE) - President and > Founder; (formerly Carnegie Forum on Education and the > Economy. > * National Alliance for Restructuring Education - Design Team Leader & > co-director. > * Program of National Center on Education and the Economy, design team > for Washington State under contract with the New American > Schools Development Corporation. > * New Standards Project - co-director. Mission is to develop New > National Testing Standards; a program of the National Center on > Education and the Economy. > * Workforce Skills Program or Commission on Skills of the American > Workforce - acting director; a program of the NCEE; group that > produced America's Choice, high skills or low wages. > * National Education Goals Panel - goal 6 resource group - contributing > member > * America's Agenda; Schools for the 21st Century; published by > Scholastic, Inc. - Board of Directors with David Rockefeller, Jr. > * Educational Testing Service - (owned by Carnegie Corp.) Advisory > Committee Member > * National Institute of Education (under the auspices of the U.S. > Department of Education) - Assistant Director > * Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy - Executive Director- > 1985-87 > * Project on Information, Technology and Education (sponsored by > Carnegie Corporation) - Project Director > * Northwest Regional Educational Laboratories, Portland, Oregon (funded > by U..S. Dept. of Education) past Assistant Director > ("Facilitator" for Oregon, Washington, Idaho and Montana. > > HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON: > > * First Lady > * National Assessment on Education Progress: (NAEP) Study Group, 1986 > * National Center on Education and the Economy: Board of Trustees, 1992 > (was paid $101,630 to promote NCEE report America's > Choice, high skills or low wages) > * New Standards Project: Board of Governors; 1993 -?, > * Children's Defense Fund: Board of Directors > > MICHAEL COHEN: > > * National Alliance for Restructuring Education - Director (NARE is a > program of the NCEE) > * U.S. Department of Education - Senior Advisor to Secretary of > Education, Richard Riley - 1994. > * National Governor's Association - past Education Program Director. > (National Governor's Association drew up the Six National > Goals, the umbrella under which America 2000/Goals 2000 operates.) > * National State Board of Education > * National Institute of Education (under the auspices of the U.S. Dept. > of Education. > > LAUREN RESNICK: > > * Learning Research and Development Center (LRDC), University of > Pittsburgh - Director > * The Center on Student Learning at Learning Research and Development > Center - will help the National Alliance establish a growing > bank of teacher-oriented research information, and identify the most > advanced curriculum proposals in the country to serve as > intellectual and practice resources for the Design Team. Teachers > can then develop their own curriculum through these resources. > * New standards Project - Co-director > * National Center on Education and the Economy - Board of Trustees, > 1994 - present > * National Education Goals Panel: Goal 3 Resource Group on Student > Achievement - Chair 1994 > * Secretary's Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills (SCANS) - > * National Council for Education Standards and Testing - Council member > * Affective Schooling Ad Hoc Committee > > DAVID HORNBECK: > > * Superintendent of Schools - Philadelphia > * National Center on Education and the Economy - board of Trustees 1994 > * National Alliance for Restructuring Education - Co-chair > * National Education Goals Panel - Goals 3 & 5, Standards Review, > Technical Planning - Subgroup member > * Washington Business Roundtable - Senior Advisor > * Gap Analysis (for Washington State) - Author, attended Washington > state Business Roundtable > * State Superintendent of Schools - Maryland (12 years) > * Carnegie Foundation on Advancement of Teaching - Chairman of the Board > * National Center of Education Outcomes > * National Council for Education Standards and Testing > * Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), Chapter I - 28 member > study panel - chairman > * GCERF Report (for Washington State) Author > * Children's Defense Fund > > ROBERT GLASER: > > * Learning Research and Development Center (University of Pittsbury) - > Director > * National Education Goals Panel - Goals 3 & 5 - NAEP Technical Advisory > Subgroup member > > JUDITH BILLINGS: > > * Superintendent of Public Instruction - Washington State > * New Standards Project - Board of Directors > * Northwest Regional Education Laboratories - Board of Directors > * Council of Chief State School Officers - President Elect > * Workforce Training and Education Coordinating Board - Member (produced > High Skills, High Wages with the he help of the National > Governor's Association and the Washington Roundtable. > > NORMA PAULUS > > * Superintendent of Public Instruction - Oregon State > * New Standards Project - Board of Directors > * Commission on Student Learning - Board of Directors > * Council of Chief State School Officers - Board of Directors > * Education Flexibly (Ed Flex) (Federal Law) pushed for passage at > National Level - Oregon first ed-flex state (1995) > * Work Flexibility (Work Flex) [Federal Law) pushed for passage at > National Level > * Rhodes Scholar Committee in Oregon - Chair 1982-86 > * Participant in a five-woman study of the role of women in German > society at the request of the West German Government. > * Oregon - First Goals 2000 State > > VERA KATZ: > > * Mayor of Portland, Oregon > * Carnegie Foundation - Board of Directors > * Author of Katz Bill (HB 3565), Oregon's Education Act for the 21st > Century - incorporates by statute America's Choice, high skills > low wages and the SCANS into Oregon law. > > J.D. HOYE > > * Assistant State Superintendent of Public Instruction - Oregon > * National School to Work (STW) Director - 1995 to present > > BOOTH GARDNER: > > * State of Washington - former Governor > * Commission on Student Learning - Board of Directors > * New Standards Project - Board of Directors > * GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) - Ambassador > > BRIAN BENZEL: > > * Edmonds School District (Washington State) Superintendent > * National Alliance for Restructuring Schools - Washington Site Leader > * Commission on Student Learning - Board of Directors > * National Council on Education Standards and Testing - member > * Schools for the 21st Century - Director 1991 > * National Education Goals Panel - member 1991 > * National Standards Task Force - member 1991 > * Governor's Council on Education Reform and Funding, 1991 > * New Horizons for Learning: Advisory Council 1991 > * State Senate Education Committee - Analyst 1973 > > > > > > > > > > > Bob & Barbara Tennison > 78612 Halderman Rd. > Cottage Grove, OR 97424-9709 > Home: 541-942-0703 > Website: http://www.jb.com/~btennison > > EDUCATION CONSUMERS CLEARINGHOUSE > Pass on this response, my magnum opus is at http://www.leconsulting.com/arthurhu/index/washtest.htm Briefly, the traditional tests are much easier for minorites and other low-scoring groups, they can be just as hard as IQ tests in terms of higher order thinking, scoring is 100% accurate becase you don't have to train experts, and even the experts don't agree more than 80% of the time on peformance based tests, the performance based tests cost a lot more money to adminster and score, and take more time, especially when they are untimed. Most current textbooks do not teach the open response, "real-life" problem solving "skills" sought by the new tests, so they require throwing out the original curriculum and textbooks. The performance based tests generally rank order districts, schools and students exactly the same as the old test, but since the more radical tests deliberately omit any percentile ranking, it is possible to change acceptable performance (50% average) to unacceptable (only 20% met some standard set by folks who think that everybody can perform at the same level as the top 5%, and since Marc Tucker says everybody can peform "at the highest level", who's to disagree??) All the new tests do is placate the traditional test-haters, but they don't do a better job, and actually are more harmful to minorities, and takes money away from schools when they typically cost as per student as a new textbook. It is remarkable that when such tests appear, there is usually very little open opposition, compared to some of the other reforms being introduced. Arthur Hu > Date: Thu, 04 Dec 1997 17:47:17 -0800 > From: Murray J Philip > Reply-to: mphilip@bellsouth.net > Organization: Nashville Board of Education > To: education-consumers@tricon.net > Cc: core-net@tucc6.tucc.trinity.edu > Subject: Terra-Nova Qustions > Today I received a teachers guide from CTB McGraw-Hill Terra-Nova test > that is suppose to placate my every fear and answer questions that I > have not even thought of yet. > > Does anyone know about this new test. I note that it moves to > performance assesments and yet I seem to remember having read that > multiple choise can be just as accurate, a lot less time consuming, and > a bit less subject to interpetation. > > Once again I call on the collective wisdom, knowledge, and expertise of > the list, Any Comments? > EDUCATION CONSUMERS CLEARINGHOUSE >