previous | next
19>> wa is grass roots??
18>> not everybody can be in the top 10%
17>> which reforms have failed
16>> constructivist textbooks
15>> marc tucker reforms
14>> minority bias
13>> la vs ca math standards
12>> no textbook? kidding?
11>> cunningham: all children can do well?
10>> who needs textbooks? ealrs
9>> filtering internet
8>> texas tests
7>> Kentucky dropped its tests
6>> found text to match ealrs
5>> john stanford love-in ed press
4>> discovery / child-based learning will destroy civilization
3>> Peggy  johnson might invite cunningam
2>> bergeson blames teachers for low math scores
1>> saxon and perf-based assesment


2>>
Date sent:        Mon, 11 May 1998 19:42:18 -0700
From:             David Blomstrom 
Subject:          kclp: GeoNews May 11
Send reply to:    kclp@ix.netcom.com


GeoNews
Monday, May 11, 1998


Split-Shift Principals?
Terry Bergeson's Big Mouth
More WEA News
Questionnaire
Stanford's Favorite QFC


	Split-Shift Principals?


Proof that John Stanford and his leading critic (me) don't monopolize
genius comes from a correspondent who offers a solution to a problem that I
hadn't solved and Stanford presumably doesn't even give a damn about. It's
the bad principals that eat up tax dollars and teacher morale. I had
suggested cutting principals like Evelyn Fairchild back to half-time, since
that's all the time they spend at their schools anyway.


But in a district where applicants for principalships are rare, wouldn't
such a drastic cut in pay risk thinning the ranks to the point where the
school board might have no choice but hire Mr. Mak? Or would they take a
lead from the infamous Sealth High School vice principal case and start
awarding principalships to any educator who boasts substitute teaching
credentials (or is a friend of personnel wizard Gloria Morris)?


A colleague offers an ingeniously simple solution - let principals work at
two different schools. Of course! That's what a number of teachers and
substitutes do, work the morning at a particular school, then race across
town to their afternoon assignment.


Of course, there may be kinks that would have to be ironed out. For
example, what if Evelyn Fairchild devoted her morning at Dearborn Park to
brunch, then followed it up with another brunch away from her afternoon
assignment?


Speaking of bad principals, individuals who are on the verge of being
exiled by the community might work mornings in a school, afternoons in the
central bureaucracy.


	Terry Bergeson's Big Mouth


An outraged colleague posted an article about Washington State
Superintendent of Public Instruction at work. I couldn't tell what
publication it came from until I got home and found the May issue of WEA
Action in my mailbox.


The article, "Bergeson blames teachers," appears as part of Trevor
Neilson's "Media Watch" column. Neilson writes, "In a March 29 article in
Tacoma's Morning News Tribune entitled ‘Teachers learn new math along with
their students,' Terry Bergeson, superintendent of public instruction and a
former president of the WEA, told readers teachers are to blame for low
math scores."



Apparently, Bergeson thinks teachers ought to learn math themselves before
they attempt to teach it. Likewise, I think Bergeson and such allies as
John Stanford ought to get a few clues about education before they attempt
to reform it.


Bergeson's undiplomatic comment riled teachers. Comments Neilson,
"Bergeson's office declined repeated requests to offer insights into her
errant interview." 


	More WEA News


The May issue of WEA Action is better than most, with a number of items
relating to assessments and a tone that is generally sympathetic to
teachers (of course). 


On the negative side, WEA President Lee Ann Prielipp's guest editorial in
the Seattle Post-Intelligencer is reprinted as "Unions - not politicians -
protect workers' paychecks." 


Symbolizing WEA's paycheck protection program is a photograph of a $5 bill
on page 9 under the heading "Special notice for WEA members regarding your
$5 dues return." Members who are "retiring, moving out of state or changing
careers in 1998-99" must fill out a "$5 dues return" and submit it to WEA.


I love the last paragraph: "For the many members who have called or written
to ask how they can reject the $5 rebate and return the money to WEA,
simply write a $5 check to WEA to offset the automatic reduction in your
Community Outreach dues next year." Yup, sleaze knows no limits in public
education!


The Evergreen Freedom Foundation clearly has its work cut out for it. Now
that WEA is bribing members with $5 rebates, EFF may have to up the ante to
$10 if they ever hope to win teachers' allegiance.


>From today's Education Intelligence Agency communique: "The Boston Globe's
token conservative columnist, Jeff Jacoby, wrote a column last week
extremely critical of California's Proposition 226, the paycheck protection
initiative. And while many of his points are arguable, Jacoby shares my
utter faith in unions to circumvent the measure should it pass. I call it
the ‘WEA lesson' after the well-documented events in Washington state.
Jacoby says it this way: ‘Tell a union it may not spend workers' money on
political activity without written permission and you merely invite it to
recast those activities as nonpolitical.'"


Back to Trevor Neilson's "Media Watch"...The obligatory Stanford salute
features a color photo of the supe, under the heading "Get well soon, Mr.
Stanford." Neilson mentions a middle-schooler whose eyes well up with tears
when he learned that Stanford would be gone: "But how am I going to show
him all the books I have read?"


The student presumably a school that Stanford visits.


	Questionnaire


I received and filled out my annual employee satisfaction questionnaire. I
gave my school generally good marks, but gave the lowest possible scores to
Stanford and the school board. In past years, management has been
surprisingly honest in reporting the abysmal results of these surveys. But
I wonder if their honesty will continue, given the extraordinary charades
they've been involved in lately.


	Stanford's Favorite QFC


I continue to be fascinated by Stanford's big walk. "After chemotherapy,
Stanford goes out for a little midnight walk," the Seattle Times reported
on April 21. In more recent articles (doubtless inspired by rumors escaping
the police department, Virginia Mason Hospital, and QFC), Stanford's
"little midnight walk" evolved into a two-mile dash for home.


I would be interested in knowing if Stanford was even headed in the right
direction. Does anyone know if the QFC Stanford was picked up at is in a
straight line between Virginia Mason and Stanford's home? I'm not even sure
where Stanford lives (somewhere on Capitol Hill). And I don't now which QFC
he was picked up at.


I telephoned the QFC at 523 Broadway East and asked if it was the one
Stanford was picked up at. A woman replied, "I think it was out store."
Think? I thought that would have been the week's biggest gossip!


I next called QFC at 1401 Broadway. The man I spoke to was surprised to
hear about Stanford's late night jaunt. He says Stanford and his wife shop
in there all the time. He knew Stanford was in the hospital, but seemed to
think he might be in Fred Hutchinson, just across the street.


The man seemed in no hurry to get back to work, and we chatted for a while.

He said he reads the Times and P-I, but just didn't see the articles about
Stanford's walk.


My guess is that Stanford was picked up at 523 Broadway East, but I don't
even know exactly where that is offhand. I guess it must be whichever QFC
is two miles from Virginia Mason. I'll have to check out some documents
from a recent lawsuit to determine where Stanford lives.


If I determine that Stanford was headed in the wrong direction, might the
Times/P-I concoct yet a third version of this story?
















1>>
Date sent:        Mon, 11 May 1998 22:57:56 -0400
To:               professor@tricon.net
From:             SHAFER305  (by way of Education Consumers ClearingHouse )
Subject:          CLEARINGHOUSE: Saxon Math demise


I would like to point everyone back to Understanding Title 1 and you can see
very clearly why standardized tests are being divorced from achievement
regarding academic content and are aiming toward "assessing" skills and
performance.  Title 1 is driving the performance-based assessments in every
state.  It is no surprise when states do what they can to receive their "fair
share" of a 7 billion dollar pile.  Even if that means getting rid of what
works in helping kids achieve....parents and kids don't count, you sillies!!!
It's keeping the federal money comin' in that's important... and doing what
one can to improve one's reelection chances... and that means federal dollars
for hiring NEA teachers and enlarging their take because they're a huge voting
block to appease.
Aside from politics, equalization of "educational" outcome through deception
is the goal.  In fact, I'd even hypothesize that the mistakes on statewide
testing referred to in the Jacoby piece really weren't "mistakes" per se.
Rather they were a deception discovered.  The goal is rich kids are no better
than poor kids.  Smart kids have no advantage over slower learners.  Disabled
kids are no different than those with no disabilities... eventually through
the magic of performance-based assessment we can all finally be completely and
thoroughly faux-equal.... 
until the rubber meets the road.... of course.
Barbara
3>>
Be sure to invite James Sanders from U Tennesee who found that
performance  based tests are  a waste of time since multiple choice 
tests give  the same rankings, but cheaper and more accurately.


I also have the number of a teacher who has told me he can explain
why the reading and writing problems are too hard as well.


> From:          "Johnson, Rep. Peggy" 
> To:            "'arthurhu@halcyon.com'" 
> Subject:       RE: George Cunningham - Standards Based Reform Based on Defective
> Date:          Mon, 11 May 1998 16:33:27 -0700


> Rep. Johnson asked that I contact you again to let you know we are
> working on this math test with various groups, and there could be a
> hearing on this issue with this gentleman.
> 
> Colleen Morse
> Sr. Legislative Assistant to
> Rep. Peggy Johnson
> 334 JLOB
> 360/786-7966
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From:	 
> > Sent:	Saturday, May 02, 1998 8:34 PM
> > To:	Johnson, Rep. Peggy
> > Subject:	Re: George Cunningham - Standards Based Reform Based on
> > Defective
> > 
> > Thanks, glad to know I'm doing some good. This test is really really
> > bad. Can't you ask him to give a lecture on why these things are bad
> > if you wont' believe a citizen like me???
> > 
> > 
> > On 1998-04-28 johnson_pe@leg.wa.gov said to arthurhu@halcyon.com
> >    >Mr. Hu:
> >    >Thank you for your continual vigilance.  I appreciate your
> >    >information.
> >    >Sincerely,
> >    >Rep. Peggy Johnson
> 


4>>
From:             XcongressX 
To:               Christeve@aol.com
Subject:          The Fantasy World of Public Education
Date sent:        Tue, 12 May 1998 00:46:52 EDT
Organization:     AOL (http://www.aol.com)


Subj:	The Fantasy World of Public Education
Date:	98-05-11 22:03:48 EDT
From:	brucec76@ix.netcom.com (Bruce Crawford)
To:	jimmyk5@swbell.net


ECC Subscribers and Loopsters:


Below is the body of a piece I submitted this evening to the Orange Co.
(CA) Register. It is the product of several different exchanges on both
lists, and off-list, over the past few weeks.


BC
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
May 11, 1998


Subject:        Public Education's Fantasy World


In a previous column this observer discussed competition, and how it
punishes foolish ideas. The column provided examples of how public
education's monopoly has allowed foolish ideas to flourish within our
school systems.


Some educational ideas are so foolish they might best be described as
fantasies and superstitions. The wildest and riskiest superstitions are
in the area of education known as methods of instruction.


Perhaps the most dangerous fantasy is the method known as child-centered
-- or discovery -- learning. The term fantasy is apropos because
student-centered learning (notice the absence of the word "teaching")
evolved from a work of fiction, Jean-Jacques Rousseau's "Emile". John
Dewey took Rousseau's romanticized notions and applied them to the
classroom.


It's hard to imagine two less-qualified developers of an educational
model for a free society. Rousseau sired five illegitimate children and
gave them all away. He admitted he was unfit to raise children. Dewey
was an avowed socialist, and his only interest in education was as a
means to an end.


Rousseau's Emile had a full-time personal preceptor living in his house
from the time he was a nursling until he was almost 20. The preceptor
was available 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. If Emile was ready to
"discover" something at 2 AM, the preceptor got out of bed and
"facilitated" the lad's discovery.


Although Rousseau romanticized discovery learning, it was terribly
inefficient. Emile had over 175,000 hours available for his
individualized learning. Our students receive about 15,000 hours of
instruction, while sharing the teacher with 20-30 (or more) other
students. Yet Emile didn't learn appreciably more than do students in a
conventional classroom. We cannot afford such inefficiency.


The inefficiency of child-centered learning (CCL) is not its worst
consequence. CCL is a threat to our civilization.


One measure of a civilized society is whether it had a written language.
Even if a society had a spoken language, it was considered to be
primitive without a written one.


Even in primitive societies, village elders taught their young. They
were limited because they had to store all of their knowledge in their
heads. Students had no books to supplement the elders' lessons, and
couldn't take notes. The knowledge base of primitive societies quickly
plateaued.


F.A. Hayek said that successful societies become so because they adopt
practices that allow them to prevail. This is true even if they do not
understand why -- or which -- practices made them successful. What was
important was the successful practices were transmitted to future
generations as a part of its culture.


One reason civilized societies were more likely to thrive was because
their knowledge base continued to expand. This increased the likelihood


that the practices which had made them successful -- even though they
might not have known which particular practices those might have been --
would be transmitted to their young.


Herein lies the risk with child-centered learning.  CCL mimics a
primitive society in that it weakens our written language by encouraging
inventive spelling, creative grammar and optional punctuation. CCL
condones other degradations to our language, such as Ebonics and
bi-lingualism.


Child-centered learning contains other dangers. Students learn to look
toward one another -- and away from their elders -- as fonts of wisdom.
An extreme example occurred recently when educational sorcerers called
middle and high school students from across the country to Rochester, NY
(a center of educational superstitions). The students were summoned to
tell the adults what they wanted to learn and how. Not even primitive
societies were this foolish.


Within the CCL setting, multi-culturalists and revisionists attack the
legacies of Western culture, substituting their own fantasies. Unproven
fads and customs are held in higher esteem than proven, successful --
albeit sometimes imperfect -- ones. Moral relativists denigrate the
moral absolutes of good and evil, truth and falsehood, and the just and
unjust, replacing them with dismissive situational ethics.


The needs of society (defined by the self-anointed) are placed above
consent of the governed as the legitimatizing authority. CCL's
group-oriented structure systematically discourages individualism and
self-reliance, two traits necessary for a free society and
self-governance.


These educators do not know which discarded practices might have made us
successful, and which new ones might make us unsuccessful. Their changes
are experimental and unproven, based solely upon their perception of the
"social good". Here lies the risk to our society. Their arbitrary
sorting process might well be setting us up to fail as a society.


As educators and politicians appeal to us for our approval to spend
billions more on public education, we parents and taxpayers should use
their appeals as a bargaining chip. We should counter that public
education must abandon its foolishness first -- not concurrently, but
first.


If they find those terms unacceptable, then any new education funds
should go to the private sector. The competition will do what reason and
common sense can't. It will bring them to their senses.




Bruce Crawford


6>>
Houtz at the Seattle Times has also written those huge
love-in coverage of the wacko new tests that are flunking
80% of our world-class 4th graders who are no worse than
kids in any other state or country as well.


She refuses to carry any of the information that these
tests are a big  fraud, and don't even line up with the 
written benchmarks published by the state 


Seattle's Stanford has proposed wacko ideas 
like giving teachers
1 day off (send the kids to field trips on friday??) and
forcing staff to spend 1 day a week in the classroom (why
not just cut staff by 20% if they're not doing any work
1 day a week??). He also supports requiring a C
average to gradate (the black average is less than a C)
and a research paper  and just got 
out of chemotherapy.


> Date:          Sun, 10 May 1998 20:08:42 -0700
> To:            kclp@ix.netcom.com.ben@thestranger.com (kclp Mailing List),
>                wsherald@wolfenet.com, seapress@nwlink.com, malkin1@ix.netcom.com,
>                swhite@kgnw.com, dave@seanet.com, kuow@u.washington.edu,
>                effwa@effwa.org, info@edbriefs.com, mahlness@halcyon.com,
>                hwolf@wolfenet.com, jillrik@nwlink.com, 2mnykds@msn.com,
>                wscri@juno.com, kumroonmak@aol.com, jerrygess@worldnet.att.net,
>                rcarr@aa.net, doni930@aol.com, alice_h@sprynet.com,

>                nbrooks@ssd.k12.wa.us, apple@dockst.com, jk81163@aol.com,
>                iheller@cks.ssd.k12.wa.us, jsaunder@u.washington.edu, cjo@ior.com,
>                JimSpady@aol.com, 102361.625@compuserve.com, Bnallick@faegre.com,
>                kclp@ix.netcom.com
> From:          David Blomstrom 
> Subject:       kclp: GeoNews May 10
> Reply-to:      kclp@ix.netcom.com


> GeoNews
> Sunday, May 10
> 
> Spam & Baloney
> Evelyn Fairchild
> 
> 	Spam & Baloney
> 

> I don't get a whole lot of e-mail in response to my website. There's an
> occasional "I admire your courage and wish you luck, but don't you know
> it's hopeless?" from a retired teacher, the odd hail from a fellow reformer
> who notes the similarities between Seattle's public education morass and
> conditions in some other big city, and a very rare nasty message.
> 
> Below is an e-mail I sent out in response to some SPAM I received
> yesterday, followed by the letter I had received.
> 
> 	* * * * * * * * * *
> 
> (Me) I've been warned time and again not to respond to crank e-mail - but
> it's hard to resist!
>  
> I get occasional supporitve correspondence and occasional negative. I've
> noticed that the negative feedback generally comes from people who are
> semi-literate. Congratulations - you spelled all your words right! And what
> a clever entry for subject - "thpppp"!
> 
> Unfortunately, it's otherwise hard to separate you from the negative crowd.
> Predictably, you discharge a few insults (from the anonymity of cyberspace)
> without any specific facts to back them up. (You didn't even mention which
> page it was that isn't funny!) I must say, I'm impressed by your e-mail
> address. Being a member of HARVARD.EDU must make you feel like a real
> education expert!
> 
> (The educrat) "No, I don't find your page funny.[Which page?]  I doubt you
> have any real understanding of public education in a pluralistic society.
> [No, I don't. I teach in Seattle School District. Get a clue.] Believing in
> democracy and free speech, however, I don't mind your posting such tripe on
> the internet. [Ditto] You actually do us flaming pinkos a favor by exposing
> the shallowness of your thinking. [At least I'm thinking!]
> Ta-ta. [Ta-ta]
> 
> The big difference between spam and baloney is, of course, that the former
> is free. I paid $2.00 for a weekend edition of the Seattle
> Times/Post-Intelligencer. And it was worth every penny.
> 
> I'm ashamed to admit it, but the Seattle Times is indeed funnier than my
> website. How do they do it?
> 
> There's nothing particularly funny about the large, italicized "Dear Mr.
> Stanford" on the front page. It points to a predictably insipid two-page
> spread featuring a short editorial by the Education Czar himself, color
> photos of cards made by children who have been brainwashed into revering
> Stanford more than many of them respect their teachers, and letters from
> people who are soft in the head. What's the punch line?
> 
> Suddenly, it leapt out at me, on top of the second page: "John Stanford is
> a brilliant man, a spectacular leader, and an extraordinary human being . .
> . but if there is one area in which he needs remedial help, it's that he
> has no clue how much people love him, admire him and respect him." Susan
> Llewellyn, assistant to the superintendent
> 
> Schools struggling to meet legislative expectations have organized mass
> student get-well-card art projects and videos while local media sink even
> deeper in the Stanfordmania that has paralyzed Seattle for 2.5 years now,
> and the General doesn't know how much each and every one of us love him?
>  
> By the way, who is this new assistant to the supe, Susan Llewellyn? I think
> I remember hearing that his former assistant, Sue Byers was promoted into
> another position after Tom Weeks fledged and deserted Stanford's love nest.
> During a recent installment of the "Stanford-Has-Cancer" miniseries, I saw
> a woman with a name I didn't recognize who, I think, was introduced as
> Stanford's assistant or secretary. I thought I had written it down, but
> can't find my notes now. But Llewellyn doesn't ring a bell.
> 
> Is it possible that the assistant/secretary who was on TV a few days ago
> abandoned ship when she learned that Stanford was returning? Or does
> Stanford have an assistant AND a secretary, or two of one or the other?
> Does anybody know? Do people at central headquarters even bother keeping
> track anymore? And what movie is S. Spielberg working on at the moment?
> 
> If he's looking for a writer, he might recruit Times executive director
> Michael Fancher. On page A17, Fancher lets it all hang out in an
> appropriately named editorial, "Story on Stanford said much about the man,

> much about our hopes."
> 
> After the traditional Stanford praise, followed by "He [Stanford] is just a
> man," Fancher praises last Tuesday's Stanford tribute by Times education
> reporter Jolayne Houtz. Fancher's reminiscenses pretty much cover what
> Houtz wrote in that story, after which he writes, "That statement [the
> Albert Camus quote] gives you a sense of the rest of Houtz's story."
> 
> But something is lost in the double retelling. Between Camus and Fancher,
> Houtz's story - which was 90% bull to begin with - is further distorted.
> "It was . . . powerfully revealing," Fancher writes. What did it reveal?
> 
> Houtz tells us she worked almost daily for four weeks to get an interview
> with Stanford. (Get a hint, if you had a TV camera Stanford might have
> broken out of the hospital again and come looking for you!) It presented
> itself as "a balancing act" - "I wanted to be sensitive to him yet still
> ask tough, provocative questions." Boy, did she!
> 
> Houtz claims she put in an 18-hour day (what I call a Stanford day) on her
> article, which was also complemented by the "masterful photos" of one Betty
> Udesen and the editing of education editor Bill Ristow. I hate to sound
> arrogant, but I could have typed up a mindless fluff piece like Houtz's in
> a couple hours! "Stanford is a god. No, Stanford IS God. He has a
> vision..." I can take pictures, too.
> 
> Houtz's reflections and my outrage are rudely interrupted by Fancher: "Just
> as Stanford's illness has confirmed something about him and the community
> he serves [not to mention security at Virginia Mason Hospital], Houtz's
> story and her comments about it confirm something about this newspaper and
> its staff." What are you saying, Michael? That you should all be fired?
> 
> Fancher then writes, "Real people produce your newspaper."
> 
> Reality check: How can we be sure? Even Fancher admits it's a "fact . . .
> that is easily missed."
> 
> The old fool then notes the striking similarity between the real people who
> regurgitate bits of news in the form of the Seattle Times and real real
> people, like you and me. He notes that his colleagues live in the
> community, just like you and me, send their children to public schools,
> "get stuck in the same traffic jams, shop at the same grocery stores, and
> cheer the same sports heroes."
> 
> To ram his point home, Fancher divulges that his daughter is a first grader
> in a Seattle public school. I'll wager a day's salary she isn't stuck in a
> Focus School! As a matter of fact, I'll bet Stanford helped Fancher get his
> daughter placed in the best public school tax dollars can buy. It probably
> even has a good principal. (Don't all of them?) But doesn't Stanford do
> that for all his children?
> 
> Throwing caution to the wind, Fancher writes, "A lot rides on how well we
> at The Times do our jobs, too. No newspaper in the country has a stronger
> commitment to education coverage than this one. No newspaper our size
> devotes more resources to it. [No newspaper so completely misses the mark.]
> 
> "As Houtz said, we have to ask the tough, provocative questions. But our
> finest moments come when we balance that responsibility with sensitivity,
> compassion and goodwill." Thank God they left Stanford's dignity intact
> after raking him over the coals!
> 
> Now, when will Fancher and his troops bully Seattle Schools administrators
> into divulging the new principal assignments that were supposed to be
> released last Monday? We already know that Franklin High School is getting
> a new principal next year, so what are sleazy mayoral candidate Cheryl
> Chow's plans? Will the indefatigable John Stanford unleash his 5- and
> 10-year vision on Seattle before Windows ‘98 hits the streets? (Might he be
> conspiring with Bill Gates to put it on a CD?) What lucky entrepeneur will
> win Seattle Schools' $50,000 lottery and be allowed to decide whether
> student uniforms advertise Coke or Pepsi?
> 
> These are the stories only the real people at the Seattle Times can bring us.
> 
> 	Evelyn Fairchild
> 
> I thought I had reformed Seattle's most stupid principal after I posted a
> web page blowing the whistle on her. But I guess it was arrogant of me to
> believe that anyone would actually pay attention to what I said.
> 
> I've been wanting to visit the kids at Dearborn Park Elementary School, but
> not while Fairchild's there. I finally responded to an invitation to visit
> the school on a weekend. Today, I met with some of the neighborhood kids on
> the playground for a sort of reunion.
> 
> I asked a parent how Dearborn Park is doing this year, and I got an earful.
> S/he claims that Fairchild's absenteeism is as outlandish as it was last
> year, noting that she spends most of her time on "lunches and brunches." 
> 
> Cavorting around the countryside wouldn't be so bad if a principal had
> something to show for it - like getting money out of some of John
> Stanford's corporate buddies. But it sounds like Dearborn Park is losing
> money. The parent rattled off a list of programs that have been dropped.
> 
> S/he also confirme some reports I've received from students that recess has
> deteriorated. It's really ironic, because recess ran quite smoothly
> supervised by me alone, while they now reportedly have three teachers on
> duty. Still, Fairchild's stunning stupidity and curious contempt for
> discipline is allegedly nurturing exactly the kind of recess battleground
> she created, then abandoned, at her last school.
> 
> I heard about a student stabbing a parent with a pencil and paying no
> consequences. (Surely, that's more serious than bringing a plastic squirt
> gun!) Foul language is said to be rampant.
> 
> Most surprising are allegations of sexual harassment by students. In fact,
> my correspondent claims some girls are afraid to go outside at recess. 
> 
> If true, this would certainly casts a pall on Stanford's claim of
> diminishing violence. Some investigate journalist ought to investigate it. 
> 
> Also disturbing are reports that Fairchild continues to deal with everyone
> who questions her administrative style (or lack thereof) the same way she
> dealt with me - by forcing them out of the building. At least two long-time
> parent volunteers have allegedly been forced out, or quit in disgust.
> 
> This is especially disturbing, because there's very little parental
> involvement at Dearborn Park to begin with. I always attributed it to the
> fact that many families in the neighborhood are relatively poor, and both
> parents may work. Also, many of Dearborn Park's parents are Asian American,
> a group not known for speaking out. (Or have I fallen victim to a stereotype?)
> 
> My informant noted the language barrier and the number of single-parent
> families. The bottom line is that Dearborn Park's students have been
> delivered into the hands of an incompetent bimbo, and absolutely no one
> seems to be saying a thing about it.
> 
> Actually, it sounds like a few staff members at the school have spoken out
> against Fairchild, but probably not to vehemently, or they wouldn't still
> be there.
> 
> People who don't give a damn about Dearborn Park's students might at least
> get up in arms over the extraordinary waste of tax dollars Fairchild
> represents. There's no better argument for hiring half-time principals, or
> for trying out a school that operates with no principal at all.
> 
> If the community cannot or will not rally and make Fairchild the first
> Seattle principal in memory to be fired, it ought to at least force her
> into a higher-paying position in the central bureaucracy and give Dearborn
> Park a shot at a principal who at least has at least mastered school
> administration 101.
> 
> There is one other possible solution. If someone could figure out away to
> get Seattle Times executive editor Michael Fancher's daughter transferred
> to Dearborn Park, I have a hunch conditions might improve. After all, he's
> one of us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
6>>
Date sent:        Thu, 14 May 1998 21:44:39 -0700 (PDT)
From:             Clifford Bishop 
To:               Rod Roberts 
Copies to:        wa-math-sci@mickey.esd113.wednet.edu
Subject:          Re: Materials to match EALR's
Send reply to:    wa-math-sci@mickey.esd113.wednet.edu


Having served on the Math textbook adoption committee for the Yakima
School District, finding materials to cover the EALR's is no easy task.
We waded through quite a bit of "eye candy" texts and supplementary
materials before settling on the Glencoe series for middle school through
high school. The improvement in student achievement tied to teaching from
the new materials hasn't been shown yet.  But a standardized statewide
text would be nice, especially because of our highly mobile student
population, at least on the East Side.


		 	Clifford J. Bishop     "Cliff"
	   	   Multi-Media Specialist/G.E.D. Instructor
			    Yakima Learning Center
		    215-A North 3rd Ave., Yakima,WA  98902
	       School Ph: 509-573-1225 / Class Ph: 509-573-3009


	"O' this learning, what a thing it is!" - Gremio, "The Taming of
		the Shrew", Act 1, Scene 2, Line 159.
 	"We must prepare students for their future, not our past!"
		- David Thornburg




On Sat, 9 May 1998, Rod Roberts wrote:


> I'm with you, Jeff!  Nothing significant came down the pike since I
> signed on this listserv until this discussion.  I too am believing that


Are you going by the printed benchmarks or the content
of the sample test, and at what grades? The 4th grade test
requires 7th and 10th grade level texts, and even that doesn't
cover all of the sample problems.


From:             Clifford Bishop 

To:               "Mr. & Mrs. Philip Boese" 
Copies to:        "wa-math-sci@mickey.esd113.wednet.edu"
     
Subject:          Re: "In too deep???"
Send reply to:    wa-math-sci@mickey.esd113.wednet.edu


I attended 3-12 in Texas back in the 60's.  At that time there was a State
Textbook Adoption Committee to standardize the textbook.  Ever hear of the
Texas Schoolbook Depository Building in downtown Dallas.  It was quite
notorious after a disastrous event in November, 1963.  Anyway, I was
surprised when I moved to Washington to teach and discovered there was no
textbook standardization.  Considering the State of Washington is adopting
EALR's, one would think there might also be standardized textbooks.  But
then, maybe they don't do it in Texas anymore.


		 	Clifford J. Bishop     "Cliff"
	   	   Multi-Media Specialist/G.E.D. Instructor
			    Yakima Learning Center
		    215-A North 3rd Ave., Yakima,WA  98902
	       School Ph: 509-573-1225 / Class Ph: 509-573-3009


7>>
James we really should talk, check on my assessment page


http://www.leconsulting.com/arthurhu/index/washtest.htm
search for "@@kentucky" 


What's happened is that they've removed all reference to 
"performance-based" testing, even though George 
Cunningham believes what they've replaced it with is
very nearly the same thing.


Washington's reforms aren't quite as radical (they also
banned grades 1-3, they have no multiple choice tests
at all etc.) but it makes one wonder why we are so boldly
going down essentially the same path to disaster trod 
by Califronia with CLAS and Kentucky's KIRIS which is 
also now dead. How long before we declare the WA
assessments a failure?




> Date:          Tue, 12 May 1998 21:35:31 -0800
> From:          "James H. Klarich" 
> To:            wa-math-sci@mickey.esd113.wednet.edu
> Subject:       Kentucky
> Reply-to:      wa-math-sci@mickey.esd113.wednet.edu


> My wife just attended a Title I implementation program today.  She
> learned that the state of Kentucky, one of the states who Washington has
> modeled its reform after, has scrapped their efforts and has switched
> back to aiming towards state testing like the old norm referenced
> tests.  They even dropped statewide portfolio evaluations.  Has anyone
> additional information?  If this is true how long until we make the same
> changes in Washington?
> 
> James H. Klarich
> Toppenish High School
> 
> 
8>>
Date sent:        Thu, 14 May 1998 09:09:39 +0000
From:             James Klarich 
Subject:          Texas
To:               arthurhu@halcyon.com
Send reply to:    klarichj@esd105.wednet.edu


What do you think of educaiton reform in the State of Texas?  Have you
looked at their tests?


James H. Klarich
Toppeinish High School


I've seen the Texas TAAS tests, they are basically grade level 
versions of the SAT . They are all multiple choice questions with 
only one correct and at least  one  correct answer,  no explanation
required. By contrast, some WA problems like the length of an
irregular border has no mathematically correct answer, but 
accepts two out of four possible responses as correct.


They actually nearly conform to the written benchmarks
that WA has published. For example, their 4th grade test has 
no conditional probability, no proportionality, no rate or ratio
problems, no decimal math, no complex sorting problems,
etc.


Their 10th grade level test has a simple venn diagram problem
compared to the WA test which puts a hard one in the 4th
grade. In fact, the first page of the college-level SAT has more
4th grade level problem than the WASL, and each corresponding
problem is actually easier on the SAT.


The Texas tests actually correspond to what actual textbooks
and typical curriculms teach, and what typical students actually
know now, not 10 years from now. They are relatively easy for
the top 10% but even these are difficult if the goal is a 90%
pass rate. To expect a 90% pass rate out of tests where only
20% pass is just nuts.


You can contact Texas to get a copy of their TAAs tests at 
grade 4 and exit. I got them with these links and got somebody
on the phone.


My texas test notes are at


http://www.leconsulting.com/arthurhu/index/washtest.htm#texas


Texas
Education Agency  Test
results broken by race  Texas results by Race   Technical Document


All of these state reforms are modeled after the 
progressive / outcome-based / school to work movements, of
which Marc Tuckers NCEE is the biggest promoter, though
there are other organizations and people promoting essentially
the same ideas. WA was under contract with the NCEE until
1994 or 95.


All of their tests share the common feature of "performance-based"
and "alternative" testing, which have been shown by Cunningham
and Bill Sanders to give exactly the same rank order results, but
have worse impact on minorites, cost more time and money, and
are much less reliable.


> Date:          Thu, 14 May 1998 19:52:48 -0400
> From:          Rick Jennings 
> To:            wa-math-sci@mickey.esd113.wednet.edu
> Subject:       Re: Kentucky
> Reply-to:      wa-math-sci@mickey.esd113.wednet.edu


> I am not sure where you are getting the info that Washington modeled their
> efforts after Kentucky. That is simply not the case. There were no
> discussions about Kentucky, or any other state for that matter.
> 
> rick
> -----Original Message-----
> From: James H. Klarich 
> To: wa-math-sci@mickey.esd113.wednet.edu
> 
> Date: Thursday, May 14, 1998 3:07 PM
> Subject: Kentucky
> 
> 
> >My wife just attended a Title I implementation program today.  She
> >learned that the state of Kentucky, one of the states who Washington has
> >modeled its reform after, has scrapped their efforts and has switched
> >back to aiming towards state testing like the old norm referenced
> >tests.  They even dropped statewide portfolio evaluations.  Has anyone
> >additional information?  If this is true how long until we make the same

> >changes in Washington?
> >
> >James H. Klarich
> >Toppenish High School
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
9>>
Date sent:        Fri, 15 May 1998 09:57:24 GMT
To:               Legislation Mailing List 
From:             nwillard@ordata.com (Nancy Willard)
Subject:          SB 1619 and Senator Murray


Please forward this to other educators in the State of Washington


Your assistance is needed to help educate Senator Patty Murray.  Senator
Murray is a co-sponsor of SB 1619.  This week she tried to have this bill
introduced on the floor.  I have talked with some of her staff and believe
that she can be brought to a better understanding of why the
currently-proposed legislation is not a good direction.


My translation of what I was told about her concerns is:


* The e-rate will result in substantially more kids getting onto the
Internet through schools.


* If schools are not prepared to deal with this and kids get into "bad
stuff" then we will have angry parents, bad news stories, and lots of bad
stuff happening that will undermine the e-rate and technology in the
schools.


(I happen to agree with her completely on these two points.)


* The mere existence of a policy will not prevent kids from accessing "bad
stuff".


I also agree on this point, but think that requiring a policy and education
around the policy is as far as Congress should go in addressing this issue.
I firmly believe that educators *must* take these concerns very seriously
and open the onramp slowly and cautiously in the context of good planning,
education, and supervision. Additionally, the mere existance of filtering
software will also not prevent kids from accessing "bad stuff."


And the issues are more than kids accessing "bad stuff".  Filtering does
not address safety from predators, hacking, inappropriate language,
copyright infringement and other issues that will emerge when kids access
the Internet through schools.


SENATOR MURRAY IS APPEARING AT A TOWN MEETING THIS SATURDAY ON KOMO TV IN
SEATTLE AND WILL BE ADDRESSING THIS ISSUE!


It would be really helpful of some educators and librarians could be in the
audience to address this issue. What I hope to be able to do is to
establish a mini-summit with the Senator, hopefully in Vancouver so that
educators and librarians from Oregon and Washington can attend, to discuss
these issues.


To send comments to her, her e-mail address is:
senator_murray@murray.senate.gov.


To follow is the written material I handed out last week when I did a
briefing for Senate staff on this issue in DC:


SB 1619: Issues of Local Control and
Personal Responsibility


Nancy Willard, Research Associate
Center for Advanced Technology in Education
College of Education, University of Oregon
Eugene, Oregon 97403 541-346-6467
E-mail: nwillard@cate.uoregon.edu


Web site: Center for Responsible Use of Information Technologies is under
construction at: http://ces.uoregon.edu/responsibleuse.


What does the current version of SB 1619 do?


This bill is a congressional dictate mandating that local schools take a
certain action -- install filtering/blocking software -- as a condition of
qualifying for e-rate discounts.


Misunderstanding 1: If you are not in favor of requiring filtering, you are
in favor of kids accessing porn.


The Council of Chief State School Officers, American Association of School
Administrators, National School Board Association, and National Education
Association all oppose the current language of SB 1619. It is not
reasonable to assume that all of these organizations are in favor of
letting kids access porn. The primary concerns are the lack of local
control and prematurely deciding that a technological "fix" is the only and
best solution.


Misunderstanding 2: If you are against requiring filtering, then you are
against filtering.


Some organizations and individuals may hold this position. For many others,
the position is not against filtering, it is against a "Congressional
requirement" of filtering and the elimination of of the opportunity to
explore other alternatives to address the concerns. Filtering is "a"
solution, not "the" solution.


Misunderstanding 3: The current bill provides for local control because
decisions about what is filtered are left to the local jurisdiction.


Filtering technology is too primative and the Web is too vast to allow for
such control. There is no provision for districts that choose not to use
filtering.Why would schools choose not to use filtering?


The primary reason that districts choose not to use filtering is that it
undermines the importance of focusing on PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY!


Other reasons that districts choose not to use filtering include:


a.  Limitations of filtering technology.


Filtering can be effective in limiting inadvertent access to inappropriate
material, but it will not prevent inadvertent access.


Filtering is not an effective deterrent to intentional access by
technically savvy students.  It merely sets up an exciting "game".


Filtering systems have problems with blocking access to material that
should be accessible.


b.  Costs of filtering and administration of filtering systems.


The use filtering diverts funds and staff attention that could be focused

on technical support and professional development.


c.  False security


The use of filtering promotes complacency which results in the failure to
emphasize standards, failure to educate, failure to monitor and failure to
address other important issues


d.  Incomplete solution


The "filtering solution" fails to address other critically important issues
that districts must face when providing Internet access to students:


Student safety from predators.


Computer security (hacking).


Copyright infringement.


Inappropriate language (harassment, defamation, etc.).


How can districts effectively foster responsible use?


a.      Expression of clear standards (Internet use policy).


b.      Professional  development for teachers in the effective use of the
Internet for educational activities and issues of responsible use. The more
effectively students are guided to use the Internet for educational
activities, the less motivated they are to engage in inappropriate
activities.


c.  Adequate planning at the school level.


c.      Education of students about how to avoid accessing inappropriate
material and why they should avoid such materials and education about other
responsible use issues.


d.  Parent education.


e.  Effective monitoring and staff supervision. Students should be closely
supervised until they have demonstrated competence in avoiding
inappropriate materials. Thereafter, monitoring and supervision should be
adequate to identify transgressions.


f.  Meaningful consequences for failure to abide by the standards.


Why is it important to focus on personal responsibility?


Schools must prepare students for success in life and work in the 21st
Century. An important part of the formula for success is personal
responsibility. As a nation, we should not be in a situation where our
businesses have to install NetNanny to baby-sit their employees. This is
clear evidence of our failure to adequately address issues of personal
responsibility in our society.


There is no technology "fix" that can substitute for good values, effective
discernment and decision-making skills, and the motivation and self-control
to behave responsibly. We must teach our students to make the right
choices. Dr. Seuss said it best:


"You'll look up and down streets.  Look 'em over with care.
About some you will say, 'I don't choose to go there.'
With your head full of brains and your shoes full of feet.
You're too smart to go down any not-so-good streets."
(1990, Oh, the Places You'll Go!)






Nancy Willard                             Phone: (541) 344-9125
Information Technology Consultant         Internet: nwillard@ordata.com
788 W 23rd Avenue, Eugene, OR 97405
K-12 Internet AUP resource site: http://www.erehwon.com/k12aup
Author of _The Cyberethics Reader_, McGraw-Hill, ISBN 0-07-070318-3.
(1-800-338-3987)


**********************************************************************
*      Dennis Small, Educational Telecommunications Supervisor       *
*    OSPI, Old Capitol Bldg, PO BOX 47200, Olympia, WA 98504-7200    *
*  Phone: (360) 664-3111   TDD (360) 664-3461   FAX: (360) 586-3894  *
*                 OSPI Home Page: http://www.ospi.wednet.edu               *
**********************************************************************


10>>
Date sent:        Sun, 17 May 1998 20:17:40 -0700
To:               wa-math-sci@esd113.wednet.edu
From:             Cliff Bishop 
Subject:          Re: Materials to match EALR's
Send reply to:    wa-math-sci@esd113.wednet.edu


Cliff Bishop     aka "neophaze"
Yakima School District No. 7
Multi-Media Specialist
@Yakima Learning Center
215-A N. 3rd Ave.
Yakima, WA  98902     Ph: 509-573-1225


"The Success Cycle" = Success enhances self-esteem, which creates
motivation, which leads to effort, which builds character, which overcomes
failure, and leads to success, which ..." - neophaze


>Who said anything about solely relying on a standardized or any text to
>teach EALR's?  The main reason(in my opinion) to have a text and teacher
>resource materials is to help the teacher plan/conduct lessons in some
>organized manner.  Unlike college, where some courses can be taught
>without a text, but not too often, most high school classes need something
>for the students to refer to.  It's a lot easier to come up with
>activities, drill/practice, assessments, if you have a selection to choose
>from, rather than having to create new items for every aspect of the
>class.


Having the focus that the EALR's will be met by using a textbook will be
>the down fall again for all of us.  Why do we all relie on the text book to
>be our curriculum?  The objective is to attain an understanding, a literacy
>and skills in the areas we teach.
>
>
>
>
>Having served on the Math textbook adoption committee for the Yakima
>>School District, finding materials to cover the EALR's is no easy task.
>>We waded through quite a bit of "eye candy" texts and supplementary
>>materials before settling on the Glencoe series for middle school through
>>high school. The improvement in student achievement tied to teaching from
>>the new materials hasn't been shown yet.  But a standardized statewide
>>text would be nice, especially because of our highly mobile student

>>population, at least on the East Side.
>>
>>		 	Clifford J. Bishop     "Cliff"
>>	   	   Multi-Media Specialist/G.E.D. Instructor
>>			    Yakima Learning Center
>>		    215-A North 3rd Ave., Yakima,WA  98902
>>	       School Ph: 509-573-1225 / Class Ph: 509-573-3009
>>
>>	"O' this learning, what a thing it is!" - Gremio, "The Taming of
>>		the Shrew", Act 1, Scene 2, Line 159.
>> 	"We must prepare students for their future, not our past!"
>>		- David Thornburg
>>
>>
>>On Sat, 9 May 1998, Rod Roberts wrote:
>>
>>> I'm with you, Jeff!  Nothing significant came down the pike since I
>>> signed on this listserv until this discussion.  I too am believing that
>>> the EALR's are off base.  I know your frustrations with No Money, No
>>> Time, No new Equipment.  We have been trying to get a math adoption at
>>> Grandview H.S. for 4 years: we've been mandated to change , in fact we
>>> want to change, but No training, No time, No money, Nothing new, just do
>>> it.  Administration is really sick!  If anyone group will be the
>>> downfall of this movement, you can bet it will start with the letter A.
>>> Some administrators have been all for the reform, and have backed that
>>> decision with time and money to get it done right.  We've been allowed
>>> at least 4-half release days in the last three years to do alignment and
>>> other ealr chores.
>>>
>>> Keep up the good discussions.
>>>
>>> Rod Roberts
>>>
>>>
>
>
>Dr. Ron Carlson
>Executive Director Information Services
>Battle Ground Public Schools
>(360) 885-5359
>PO Box 200
>Battle Ground, WA 98604
>
>If you are looking into the future and your feet are still in the picture
>... you are not looking far enough ahead.


11>>
Date sent:        Sat, 16 May 1998 07:00:41 -0400
To:               professor@tricon.net
From:             Rovarose  (by way of Education Consumers ClearingHouse ) (by way of Education Consumers ClearingHouse )
Subject:          CLEARINGHOUSE: teaching intelligence


Dr. Cunningham,


I agree that intelligence is not emotional, nurturable, experimental,
multiple, or elusive.


One could argue as to whether it is modifiable.  At the March Core Knowledge
conference, ED Hirsch delivered a very interesting concluding address in which
he emphasized how difficult it is to tell the difference between inborn
"intelligence" and the effects of acquired knowledge.  Unfortunately, I have
not yet been able to get a transcript of it.


The CK experience is at odds with the idea that expert instruction will widen
the gap between bright and dull students.  


After three years of implementation of the CK curriculum at the Three Oaks ES
in Ft Meyers, achievement test scores were distinctly higher than the
baseline, and higher than a control school.  However, the scores of the bottom
scoring students rose significantly more than the rise of the top scorers.


In other words, it appeared that CK helps all students, but it helps slower
students more than the high scorers, thereby narrowing, not widening, the gap
in achievement.


It is a statistical impossibility for all children to score in the top ten
percent.  However, all normal children have the potential to be fully
literate, fully numerate, and well educated.   If kids would all just perform
intelligently, we would put less emphasis on the contribution of genetics to
the performance.


Bob


It appears that the only exception to the rule that , indeed , all
children cannot perform at the top 10% are direct instruction 
miracles like Wesley and Barclay, which are difficult to replicate.


It is interesting to note that the people who promote all can 
succeed are the ones with test scores falling from 90 to 50, while
the DI people who don't neccesariliy believe all can excel are the
ones who do have schools where 98% pass the TAAS basic
skills tests.


I think that nearly all can do somewhat better than average is
a more realistic goal
> To:            professor@tricon.net
> From:          Rovarose  (by way of Education Consumers ClearingHouse ) (by way of Education Consumers ClearingHouse )
> Subject:       CLEARINGHOUSE: teaching intelligence


> Dr. Cunningham,
> 
> I agree that intelligence is not emotional, nurturable, experimental,
> multiple, or elusive.
> 


12>>
Date sent:        Fri, 15 May 1998 19:26:34 -0800
From:             "James H. Klarich" 
To:               wa-math-sci@esd113.wednet.edu
Subject:          No Time
Send reply to:    wa-math-sci@esd113.wednet.edu


Dr. Ron Carlson,


I'm not sure about where you teach but in my district I have either four
or five different classes to prepare for each year.  I need a canned
program from which I may make additions/modifications.  You do realize
that these companies which develop the books spend millions of dollars
using dozens of people in a process which lasts years.  Now we are to do
this in Toppenish with tens of dollars using two people in a process
which lasts months......is there something wrong here?


James H. Klarich
Toppenish High School


Date sent:        Fri, 15 May 1998 22:51:23 -0700
From:             Rod Roberts 
To:               wa-math-sci@esd113.wednet.edu
Subject:          Re: Materials to match EALR's
Send reply to:    wa-math-sci@esd113.wednet.edu


Gee Ron,


I guess I'm too dumb to invent 180 worth of curriculum materials and
activities for 3 or 4 preps each year and then changing my preps every
year or two.  I've taught 3 new classes in the last 3 years plus two old
standbys.  Next year I'll teach another course totally new to me.  I'm
afraid I have to have some guidance to help me stay on track and cover
the types of things curriculum specialists have designed.  I also get to
teach 6 periods, that means not many sections of the same classes.  TELL
ME HOW TO DO THAT WITHOUT A TEXT!!!


Rod




Dr. Ron Carlson wrote:
>
> Having the focus that the EALR's will be met by using a textbook will be
> the down fall again for all of us.  Why do we all relie on the text book to
> be our curriculum?  The objective is to attain an understanding, a literacy
> and skills in the areas we teach.

>
> Having served on the Math textbook adoption committee for the Yakima
> >School District, finding materials to cover the EALR's is no easy task.
> >We waded through quite a bit of "eye candy" texts and supplementary
> >materials before settling on the Glencoe series for middle school through
> >high school. The improvement in student achievement tied to teaching from
> >the new materials hasn't been shown yet.  But a standardized statewide
> >text would be nice, especially because of our highly mobile student
> >population, at least on the East Side.
> >
> >                       Clifford J. Bishop     "Cliff"
> >                  Multi-Media Specialist/G.E.D. Instructor
> >                           Yakima Learning Center
> >                   215-A North 3rd Ave., Yakima,WA  98902
> >              School Ph: 509-573-1225 / Class Ph: 509-573-3009
> >
> >       "O' this learning, what a thing it is!" - Gremio, "The Taming of
> >               the Shrew", Act 1, Scene 2, Line 159.
> >       "We must prepare students for their future, not our past!"
> >               - David Thornburg
> >
> >
> >On Sat, 9 May 1998, Rod Roberts wrote:
> >
> >> I'm with you, Jeff!  Nothing significant came down the pike since I
> >> signed on this listserv until this discussion.  I too am believing that
> >> the EALR's are off base.  I know your frustrations with No Money, No
> >> Time, No new Equipment.  We have been trying to get a math adoption at
> >> Grandview H.S. for 4 years: we've been mandated to change , in fact we
> >> want to change, but No training, No time, No money, Nothing new, just do
> >> it.  Administration is really sick!  If anyone group will be the
> >> downfall of this movement, you can bet it will start with the letter A.
> >> Some administrators have been all for the reform, and have backed that
> >> decision with time and money to get it done right.  We've been allowed
> >> at least 4-half release days in the last three years to do alignment and
> >> other ealr chores.

> >>
> >> Keep up the good discussions.
> >>
> >> Rod Roberts
> >>
> >>
>
> Dr. Ron Carlson
> Executive Director Information Services
> Battle Ground Public Schools
> (360) 885-5359
> PO Box 200
> Battle Ground, WA 98604
>
> If you are looking into the future and your feet are still in the picture
> ... you are not looking far enough ahead.








Date sent:        Fri, 15 May 1998 19:18:04 -0800
From:             "James H. Klarich" 
To:               wa-math-sci@mickey.esd113.wednet.edu
Subject:          Re: Kentucky
Send reply to:    wa-math-sci@esd113.wednet.edu


Mr. Rick Jennings,


Perhaps I should have stated that the Washington reform is similar to
the Kentucky reform, not modeled after.  I understand that one of the
problems Kentucky has had is getting some consistency in the grading of
their tests.  It seems the company they hired has made quite a large
number of mistakes.  Are we sure that the same won't happen here?


James H. Klarich
Toppenish High School




sorry busy familyi and work schedule, but I'd love
to get a audio cassette.


Do you think that this NCTM stuff  will save or
destroy math? 


what do you think of all the schools that had
parent revolts when their math test scores went
down the tubes after fuzzy math?


And what of poor black kids with 85th 
percentile scores with direct instruction?


Date sent:        Fri, 15 May 1998 12:08:53 -0700 (PDT)
From:             Kurt Sahl 
To:               arthurhu@halcyon.com
Subject:          NCTM past president to talk at UW


Arthur,
I would like to take this opportunity to personally invite you to
listen to Gail Burrill, the recent past president of the National
Council of Teachers of Mathematics.  She will be speaking at a number
of functions over the coming week.  I hope you will make it a
priority to attend one.




Monday Evening, May 18th, at the Spring Dinner of the Puget Sound
Council of Teachers of Mathematics.  For details or to sign up for the
dinner, get in touch with Royal Pennewell (360-652-9052)


Tuesday afternoon, May 19th, at 4:00 in Smith 205 she will give a
colloquium jointly sponsored by the Mathematics Department and the
College of Education.  The title will be "What's going on in the
current math reform."  This talk is geared especially
towards issues of interest to university and college faculty, and I am
hoping to have a wide representation from community colleges and
universities around the area. There will be a reception afterwards in
the Math Lounge for one and all. 


Wednesday afternoon, May 20th, at 4:30 in Kane 210, she will give a
talk jointly sponsored by the Mathematics Department, the K-12
Institute, and the Office of Educational Partnerships.  It's title is
"What's happening to Math these days?"   This talk is geared to the
community at large--parents, teachers, school administrators and
anyone whose interest has been piqued by the recent random bursts of
media interest.


I hope you will be able to attend.
Kurt


Kurt Sahl
Graduate student
College of Education
Univ. of Washington
Seattle


13>>
Date sent:        16 May 1998 12:56:56 -0700
From:             "Mike McKeown" 
Subject:          Math Standards:  LA vs. California
To:               "david klein" , "Mike" 


                      Subject:                              Time:  1:16 PM
  OFFICE MEMO         Math Standards:  LA vs. California    Date:  5/15/98


Math Standards:  LA vs. California


Soon to be available on 2+2=4 the Mathematically Correct Web Site\





Many school districts around California and the US have developed their own
mathematics standards.  With the adoption of the new California Mathematics
Standards, it is critical for Californians at all levels of the educational
process (student, parent, teacher, principal, district administrator, school
board member) to verify that the standards within individual districts are
sufficient to ensure student performance at or above the level described in
the state standards.


Shortly after the adoption of the California Math Standards by the California
Board of Education, LAUSD Superintendent of Schools, Ruben Zacarias, issued a
memorandum stating that  ``the LAUSD Standards include and go beyond the State
Board standards."


No adjustment of LAUSD's math standards are necessary, according to Mr.
Zacarias, as he explained that, ``the high expectations for student
achievement set forth by the [LAUSD] school board and the Superintendent will
be met by implementing the standards-based curriculum recommended by the Los
Angeles Systemic Initiative."


Mr. Zacarias further elaborated in his memorandum that textbooks aligned
with the new California State Standards would have to be supplemented to
"rise" to the level of the LAUSD math standards. 


In response to this claim, a number of mathematicians and concerned citizens
performed a direct comparison of the California Standards and the LAUSD
Standards.  This will soon be available on line at
.  


On May 14, David Klein, a mathematics professor at California State 
University at Northridge, spoke before the Curriculum Committee of LAUSD Board
of Education.  This committee is chaired by board member David Tokofsky.  Dr.
Klein  urged the LAUSD Board to reject its own math standards and adopt the
State of California math standards in its place.  Dr. Klein informed the
committee that a detailed comparison of the two standards would be available
to them on the Mathematically Correct website, and pointed out several obvious
and inexcusable short-comings of the LAUSD standards: the entire field of
trigonometry is missing, third-graders are encouraged to use calculators
thereby undermining arithmetic skills, the standards are vague, repetitive,
and fall far-short of what minimum standards should require.  Dr. Klein
contends that the LAUSD math standards are so weak that they serve no other
purpose than to protect the status quo in LAUSD.


Although this issue specifically relates to the situation in Los Angeles, the
problem of low level, vague standards is common in states and cities across
the country.  This comparison serves to highlight the differences between
clear, explicit, grade by grade standards of learning and standards which are
neither specific nor clear.  As such, this comparison could be valuable for
anyone attempting to judge the depth and quality of his state or local
standards. 




Michael McKeown
Mathematically Correct


Mathematically correct has posted a comparison of the new
California standards and the Los Angeles "higher" standards.


A quick look appears that the LA standards appear to be placed
nearly exactly the same place as the WA benchmarks (as 
opposed to the EALR test which appears to contain content
far above the alleged test grade level).


For example, decimals, rate, ratio and proportion don't appear
until the 7th grade. (but do appear on WA's 4th grade test)


The CA standards also place decimals, rate , ratio ,and 
proportion way beyond 4th grade.


The CA standards are much more detailed than the WA
standards.


I have standards compared on my math page by topic at


http://www.leconsulting.com/arthurhu/index/math.htm


This is what Marc Tucker, the architect for WA reforms has to
say about the "low'" CA standards:


STANDARDS MUST BE PERFORMANCE NOT CONTENT STANDARDS
\clip\98\09\23tucker.htm http://www.edweek.com/ew/vol-17/23tucker.h17
education Week on the web Raising Our Standards For the Standards
Movement By Marc Tucker and Judy Codding Standards-based education
will not work without incentives and consequences.  Almost every state
either has academic standards or is producing them.  But the main
problem is that these content standards are difficult, if not
impossible, to use for any practical purposes because they are not
performance standards. A politically driven state education board
there narrowed the whole math curriculum into little more than the
mastery of math facts and algorithms. What they decided to leave out
was any need for students to understand the concepts that underlie the
facts and formulas, or to use the algorithms they master to solve
problems of the kind they will encounter in real life.  The result is
that few states have standards that are internationally benchmarked,
describe a curriculum that can actually be taught, include an emphasis
on conceptual understanding and applications as well as basic
knowledge and skills, and incorporate examples of student work that
meets the standards. [explains certificate of mastery at 16, will be
required for all jobs and colleges] The districts and schools using
the New Standards performance standards and assessments our
organization has developed have learned as much. They are discovering
that the available materials cannot be assembled into a coherent
curriculum that fits any well-designed standards [that's what happens
when you toss the textbooks in formulating standards that deliberately
ignore them]


Note that New Standards has also discovered what happens when
you deliberately formulate standards around a curriculum that does
not exist in any standard textbook. No textbook will work, as 
teachers in WA are finding out.


14>>
All evidence that I and George Cunningham have seen is that 
performance based tests have a far greater impact on minorities than
multiple choice. This  is especially ironic since people like 
Marc Tucker and Fairtest say that test bias is the biggest reason for 
adopting the new tests. Problem is , the assumption is that if
multiple choice is bad, peformance testing must be better, but
they never check their assumptions.


On the California CLAS, 50% of minorities scored in the "knows
nothing" category compared to only 25% of whites. This was
never reported, in fact the size of the racial gap was never 
reported even once despite the huge coverage given to CLAS.
No one even asked.


At least in WA, they released the figures. On the WASL,
95% of minorities fell "below standard" on 4th grade math compared
to 80% of whites. If you view that as 5% vs 20% pass, that's a 4
to 1 ratio. If you get the figures back from Olympia, the race gap is
nearly 1 standard deviation, the same statistical gap as the very
difficult SAT and IQ tests quoted in the "Bell Curve". That's equal
to the 15th percentile. By contrast, on the CTBS, minorities 
typically score in the 30th to 40th percentile, which is a much 
smaller gap.


The problem is that the gap is not caused by bias. Everyone knows
the WA assessment was designed specifically to eliminate all
possible bias. The size of the gap really depends on how hard 
the test is, with SAT and IQ tests being some of the hardest tests
around. Tests that deliberately test for skills that are not taught,
and require extended response are even more difficult for 
underprepared minorities than multiple choice tests.. Every study
comparing rank order results for performance vs . multiple choice
tests shows that whatever the size of the gap, the ranking
is the same no matter how you tests - whites and asians on top,
poor and minorities on the bottom.


So the question is not whether or not all tests are invalid  because
they give different results. The question is why do we need a 
test so difficult that minorities show the same gap as SAT and IQ
tests that are specifically designed to pick out students at the
top and bottom 10% when the purpose of the WASL is to test
only "what every student is expected to know"?


I guarantee you that despite letters I have sent to Bergeson
and Gordon engsign, they will both claim, without any proof,
that the tests are less biased than the old tests, and that the
race gap is no worse than the old tests. But it simply isn't true,
and it really bothers me that nobody notices that while Bergeson
says "all will succeed", she's pushing a test that, at least for
minorities, quite literally "all are failing" considering that 95% is
statistically the same as 100% for practical purposes.


What is raising standards up 2 grade levels going to do for
minorities who are still 2 years behind? They are going to
be up a creek without a paddle, while kids in the best schools
like Bellevue's Somerset will continue to shine on top. That's
the real fraud to this EALR movement.


What we need are the Texas standards, which are literally
set at a level that Thad Lott's inner city kids actually do pass
basic skills at a 85% rate, and so do the suburban kids.


We don't need "higher" standards, we just need to insure that
100% can pass the old standards.




> From:          "Rick Jennings" 
> To:            
> Subject:       Re: Kentucky
> Date:          Tue, 19 May 1998 13:52:31 -0700
> Reply-to:      wa-math-sci@esd113.wednet.edu


> Which minorities are you speaking of when you state that is worse for
> minorities?  ... What is NCEE? I should note that performance-based testing
> has been around for a long time....use it in school all the time. If
> performance-based tests are not reliable, yet give the same results as
> multiple-choice/true-false tests... can we then assume that these tests are
> not reliable as well?
> 
> I for one would certainly agree to drop all tests from the curriculum, as
> well as standardized tests used to decide college entrance. Since none are
> reliable... then we finally found something we can agree on....yeah!!!
> 
> rj
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
15>>
Please read the transcript of what I sent out.


It's a letter from our governor and superintendent of instruction 
saying that we're signing a contract to Marc Tucker to have his
organization design our reform plan and assessment.


> >I have enclosed a copy of the original proposal to the
> >New American Schools Development Corporation. As you
> >can see, the proposal was signed by both myself and

> >Governor Booth Gardner.


> >This memorandum will confirm the participation of Washington State
> >in our proposal to the New American Schools Development Corporation
> >for funding of a contract to design a new system of
> >"break-the-mold" public schools.


What more proof do you need as to who designed the plan for
reform called for by SB1209??


> From:          "Rick Jennings" 
> To:            , ,

>                
> Subject:       Re: WA 1993 reform act designed by Marc Tucker's NCEE
> Date:          Tue, 19 May 1998 13:38:07 -0700


> The statement that I refuted Arthur was that "the Washington state tests
> were modeled after the Kentucky". It is curious that we tend to get so loose
> with language when trying to argue a point... I probably do it as well. The
> fact is that nothing in the WA reforms were modeled after the Kentucky
> reforms. A further fact is that nothing in the discussions of reform
> included the name Marc Tucker...your facts are just plain wrong. Please keep
> in mind that I am not arguing for or against either the Kentucky plan or
> Marc Tucker's plan...just trying to keep the discussion from getting
> polarized.
> 
> rick
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Arthur Hu 
> To: wa-math-sci@mickey.esd113.wednet.edu
> ; wa-esslrngs@psesd.wednet.edu
> 
> Date: Tuesday, May 19, 1998 11:40 AM
> Subject: WA 1993 reform act designed by Marc Tucker's NCEE
> 
> 
> >Somebody on the WA math listserv was mistaken in saying that
> >WA reforms are not related to Kentucky's, which has just
> >declared their keystone test to be a massive failure. In fact both
> >states had their reform programs designed by Marc Tucker's
> >little known NCEE, which as signed up enough districts and
> >states to cover half of public school students nationwide.

> >
> >Tucker is also the main force behind school-to-work and the
> >10th grade CIM. You can't understand WA reforms if you
> >don't understand Marc Tucker or outcome based education.
> >
16>>


I'm speaking from listening to Maureen Dimarco's testimony to
the WA legislation, she was shocked to see the textbooks that
were approved, they were completetly constructivist, that is , they
didn't tell you how to do anything like multiply or do long division,
everything has to be "constructed" or "discovered",  and any book
with practice or drill was labeled as unacceptable. 


Typical examples would be "fantasy lunch" found in mathland,
IMP and Everyday mathematics.


There is another
example of the school district that said that the Saxon books, which
are proven to result in high test scores for kids, were not allowed
becuase they did not support constructivist "standards" dictated
by the district. They probably did not have sections explaining how
proportionality would be used in "real life" , include gay or women
mathematicians, have a politically correct distribution of student
names, or  other such requirements found in our EALRs which
are absolutely essential if our math teaching is to be competitive
with the Japanese (who don't care about such things)


If you want to find out more  about constructivism, which is the
foundation of Marc Tucker-based education (which is the same
as the EALRS) see


http://www.leconsulting.com/arthurhu/index/edreform.htm#constructivis
m"


> From:          "Rick Jennings" 
> To:            
> Subject:       Re: "In too deep???"
> Date:          Tue, 19 May 1998 13:32:58 -0700
> Reply-to:      wa-math-sci@esd113.wednet.edu


> Arthur -- could you please define the term "constructivist books" for us
> all. Please include some examples if you would. Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
17>>
From:             Robert McIntosh 
To:               "'wa-math-sci@esd113.wednet.edu'" 
Subject:          RE: WA 1993 reform act designed by Marc Tucker's NCEE
Date sent:        Wed, 20 May 1998 15:47:16 -0700
Send reply to:    wa-math-sci@esd113.wednet.edu


Irv asked:
	Where might one find a source of funding for technology
workshops?


	Here are two sources on the web that has quite a few grants.
	http://quest.arc.nasa.gov/top/grants.html
	http://www.mcrel.org/connect/tech/funding.html


	For those of you who haven't heard, there is a new comprehensive
sight put out by DOE on the web that has links to tons of stuff. The
address is
	http://www.ed.gov/free/


	Irv asks:
	What are some conditions for supporting reform?
	Which reform efforts have failed?
	Why did it fail?  Why?


	Larry Cuban wrote an article in Educational Researcher entitled
"Reforming Again, Again and Again".   The following quote summarizes his
opinion on some of these questions.


	"Reforms return because policymakers fail to diagnose problems
and promote correct solutions. Reforms return because policymakers use
poor historical analogies and pick the wrong lessons from the past.
Reforms return because policymakers fail to think seriously about
educational purposes or question the mindlessness of schooling.  Reforms
return becuase policymakers cave in to the politics of a problem rather
that the problem itself.  Reforms return because decision makers seldom
seek reliable, correctly conducted evaluations of program effectiveness
before putting a program into practice."


	The question of why reform fails is a complicated one but
important factors include failure to base reform on a strong research
base, failure to properly evaluate programs, failure to provide adequate
funding for staff development and community education, and the tendency
of policymakers to succumb to political expediency.


	These are great questions you've asked, Irv.  I hope more people
jump into the fray.


	Bob McIntosh
	Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory
	Portland


> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Irv Benson [SMTP:bensoni@destiny.esd105.wednet.edu]
> Sent:	Wednesday, May 20, 1998 1:02 PM
> To:	Rick Jennings 
> Subject:	Re: WA 1993 reform act designed by Marc Tucker's NCEE
>
> I do not understand the importance placed on who might have authored
> what.  It seems to me that dissemination efforts are more critical to
> the success of any reformation.
>
> Some points of concern for myself and maybe for some others ( since
> the
> barn door is open already)
>
> 	Where might one find a source of funding for technoloty
> workshops?
>
> 	Where are the workshops taking place?
>
> 	Can there be levels of reform? Modest reform? Major reform?
> Raldical reform?
>
> 	What constitutes reform?
>
> 	What are some conditions for supporting reform?
>
> 	Shouldn't we allow reformation to evolve with control rather
> than 			by
> immediate revolution?
>
> 	Cooperative learning ideas? workshops? ( rather than just
> putting
> 	students together in groups and saying that it's cooperative
> learning)
>
> 	Which reform efforts have failed? Certainly there must be one.
> 	Why did it fail?  Which have succeeded? Why?
>
>
> Is there another on line with more questions?
>
> Irv Benson
> Eisenhower High School
> Yakima WA
>




> 	These are great questions you've asked, Irv.  I hope more people
> jump into the fray.
> 
> 	Bob McIntosh
> 	Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory
> 	Portland
> 


> > 	Can there be levels of reform? Modest reform? Major reform?
> > Raldical reform?


As stated by the letter from WA to Tucker , we're signed up for
RADICAL reform


> >
> > 	What constitutes reform?


It generally comes in two forms, direct instruction, which gives
marvelous results ,but the education industry hates it because
it's not based on PC, the other (WA/Tucker) generally shows
dramatic declines, but offers the "promise" of success for all,
evidently based on nothing more than wishful thinking, and it
completely PC. Thus, we have tests that are meant to erase
the minority gap, but flunks 95% of minorities, is meant to
raise math test scores, but results in parent revolts when test
scores decline (which is a major reason for attempting to 
toss the old tests)


> > 	What are some conditions for supporting reform?


Tucker relies on media campaigns and political organizing.


> >
> > 	Shouldn't we allow reformation to evolve with control rather
> > than 			by
> > immediate revolution?


What do you think Mao, or Pol Pot would think about such
an idea? In the words of Chairman Tucker, we need to change
the system root and branch, and get rid of the notion that only
a few kids are good enough for MIT when ALL students can
achieve at world class levels (note that Tucker has never 
demonstrated any group of children where this has happened,
he simply assumes this is so)


> > 	Cooperative learning ideas? workshops? ( rather than just
> > putting
> > 	students together in groups and saying that it's cooperative

> > learning)
> >
> > 	Which reform efforts have failed? Certainly there must be one.


Nearly every reform effort since the original new math has failed
miseraby. Perhaps a better question is are there any that have
succeeded? The big problem is that refoms are structured so that
no matter how badly they do, we just have to "give it a chance",
but all the lemmings don't realize where they're going until AFTER
they've lept off the cliff. Thus, we have a 80% failure rate on math,
and instead of saying this test is f@#$ed up, we celebrate how bad
it makes our children look.


> > 	Why did it fail?  Which have succeeded? Why?


Generally they are all based on PC and politics, and not sound
science. Places like Wesley where 90% of poor black kids pass
basic skills tests is precisely what big education hates. They'd
rather give WA kids tests where 95% flunk and demand even
more reforms which merely guarantee that they precisely avoid
things like rote memorization which is why Asians are kicking
everybody else's buts.




> >
> >
> > Is there another on line with more questions?
> >
> > Irv Benson
> > Eisenhower High School
> > Yakima WA
> >
> 
> 
> 


18>>
Date sent:        Wed, 20 May 1998 10:24:47 -0400
To:               professor@tricon.net
From:             "mcnee"  (by way of Education Consumers ClearingHouse )
Subject:          CLEARINGHOUSE:  Percentages


Today I have seen somewhere (cannot find it again) that by definition only
10% of us can be (gifted or something).  On the bell curve, half of us are
above average and half below average.  But this arrangement only refers to
a situation on the given sample.  Once you have  a scale, and keep to it,
then you can start improving on the situation.  Thus, Sue Lloyd's very
ordinary school intake has achieved that only 2 children score below 100
(average) and none below 90, from a test which started on standardisation 
with half the children below 100.  So in a roundabout way the standardised
norms reflected the very poor, below-potential achievement of the children
(2,000?  3,000?) in the sample used for norming.   The resulting norms
reflected the teaching as much as or more than the innate ability of the
sample.  Equally, John Holt wrote his books "How children learn" and "Why
children fail" (did I get the titles right?)  based on observation of
children who for decades had been exposed to look-say, and phonics-neglect.
They had been made to under-achieve and then were used to standardise
norms.  If he had observed in Wesley Elementary, Houston, he would have
come to different conclusions.
	This is why it is so important that we keep existing norms.  The
statistical idea would be that when 95% of children learn to read properly
and early, the norms should all be revised, to force yet again half the
children to be below 100.  But we must keep existing norms, in order to
compare over time.  Mona


19>>
From:             LisaMcKeen 
Date sent:        Tue, 19 May 1998 09:13:54 EDT
To:               arthurhu@halcyon.com
Subject:          Re: WA 1993 reform act designed by Marc Tucker's NCEE


Please remember - Kentucky's education reform was designed, implemented, and
failed for a couple of reasons.  The teachers in the state were told to teach
to new standards, Kentucky made no funding plans to support this change.  No
training, no parent/community meetings - just top down dictatorial practice as
usual.  My source - teachers from Kentucky whom I met at NCTE conventions,
teachers spending their own money to attend conventions so that they could do
a better job, meet the goals of the reform and students.  So hold onto your
hat -- this reform movement in WA state has at least attempted to move bottom-
up ( grass roots do that too!!!!!!) and provide funding and time for
teacher/staff/community training.  Lisa


I can't stand all this "oh we're not going to make the same mistake 
as Oregon, California, Kentucky...."  Give or take 15%, they're all 

based on Tucker's master plan to completey destroy and rebuild 
education in his image. WA has no curriculum that will make kids pass
tests that don't even match their own benchmarks. It's the same 
thing, underpinned by the same progressive / constructivist /
outcome based education / school to work agenda.




Home | arthurhu@halcyon.com