The Thomas B. Fordham Foundation gives Washington state an "F" for 2005 in two recent reports: "The State of State English Standards," and "The State of State Math Standards."
The analysis on English instruction standards for Washington state public schools is especially devastating, and dead on the money. Here's just one of many points from the Foundation regarding Washington's muddled, lax standards for student learning. They note a Grade 8 standards document....
...implies that students should read only what is 'culturally relevant'....It seems that students are to be restricted to reading works that the teacher deems part of their 'culture,' a condescending and limiting perspective on what children are capable of reading and should be exposed to.....Washington should eliminate standards for the English language arts that seem to serve as expressions of some person's or some group's political and social goals. Instead, it should craft sound and comprehensive academic expectations for literary study through the grades.
Yet, the Democrat-controlled state legislature is mightily pandering again, as I've reported recently, here and here.
The Fordham Foundation's 2005 grade for Washington's math standards is also an "F." Here's the full 50 State report on math standards. Scroll to p. 78 for Washington. Nationwide, the Foundation says, the biggest problems with math instruction in K-12 education are: "lack of true math competence among those writing the standards;" "overuse and wrong applications of manipulatives and calculators;" and "wrong-headed guidance from The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics."
Hat Tip: Sound Politics reader Kristy Wasson, of Camas, WA.
Posted by Matt Rosenberg at February 13, 2005 07:25 PM | Email ThisAll the kids know how to spell d-i-v-e-r-s-i-t-y and m-u-l-t-i-c-u-l-t-u-r-a-l. All boys are now well indoctrinated as to their evil status as part of the patriarchy and white kids all know now that they should be paying reparations once they become adults.
Plus, they will soon know that their true government is based on an indian reservation.
(Sadly and ironically, with Gregoire in the governor's office, the indian council has a better claim to being the real government).
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on February 13, 2005 07:39 PMA mathematician by training, I watched my oldest daughter, a stellar student (now at Berkeley), fail to learn algebra.....yet earn nearly a 4.0 in math in her 4 years at Shorewood H. S.. When asked how she got an "A" when she clearly could not commute an algaebraic expression, her answer was, "I did extra credit". I guess she didn't have to get it right
Posted by: BubbaDoRadar on February 13, 2005 07:46 PMThere must be a lot of us mathematicians that follow this blog! I'm math faculty in a neighboring state, and I often teach math courses for the education majors. The problem isn't just in Washington, it's everywhere. The NCTM's "standards" are a simply a way to codify underachievement. They are written so vaugely that almost anything can claim to be "standards based."
Textbooks are a mess. I have trouble making sense of some things in my 9th grader son's geometry text, despite the fact that I hold a PhD in geometry (from UW). And it isn't that the material is in any way difficult -- it's the same stuff, but with decreased emphasis on proofs. It's just that the books have to include so many multicultural connections and color pictures and other crap that the mathematical organization is impossible to find. No wonder students aren't learning from them.
The sad state of affairs is this: real education reform won't happen for at least another generation or until control of the decision making is wrested from the professional "education" associations.
Is it like: "for white people, 2 plus 2 equals 4, but for Indian people it just depends on which universe you are in while doing that addition."
Or, maybe for inner-city kids: "Two white people go into your neighborhood, then two more, so how many is dead?"
Or, for kids on Mercer Island: "2 Mexican ladies walk into your house, then 2 more, so how many illegal immigrants are working as maids in your house today?"
Geezzzz .... no wonder there is a problem ....
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on February 13, 2005 08:26 PMAs a wise legislator once told me: Beware the ones who are more interesting in who's teaching the kids than whether they're learning anything.
Posted by: Michele S on February 13, 2005 08:49 PMI'm sure we do have high standards, but just like election laws we don't bother to adhere to them.
Posted by: dave on February 13, 2005 10:37 PMThe report suggests “borrowing a complete set of high-quality math standards from a top scoring state. There is no need to reinvent this wheel.” I would love to see Washington do this, and completely take away standard-writing authority from whoever is doing it now.
State standards are easy to find online. Read the 2nd or 3rd grade standards for easy comparison.
Posted by: California Dreamer on February 13, 2005 10:40 PMThis state's leadership is not trying to reinvent the wheel; they're trying to keep mechanics from replacing it.
Posted by: ERNurse on February 13, 2005 10:47 PMI don't know enough about social science to tell whether the study is good or bad.
What I do know though is that, even in the sciences where I practice, you can make almost any case if you use the right statistics
In my estimation the value of this study is to provide "academic ammunition" for a battle of "experts".
Posted by: DeadWood on February 13, 2005 11:02 PMSince I know that you have the ability to at least consider conflicting data, here's a link to a critique of the 2000 Fordham Foundation study. If you read the Foundation study, you will see that it is not ranking achievement, but merely the author's view of what the standards should be. The critique points out that at least in the 2000 study this had little correlation to student achievement.
http://www.asu.edu/educ/epsl/EPRU/peer_reviews/cerai-00-07.htm
Posted by: Steve on February 14, 2005 08:00 AMIf you need further evidence, go to your local junior high and borrow an algebra or geometry text. Try to read it. Decide for yourself if *you* could learn from it. Then ask yourself why we are expecting our kids to learn from them, or why we turn the education of our kids over to the people who write such garbage.
Posted by: Moscow Mark on February 14, 2005 09:11 AMSeeing how my 3rd grader is plugging merrily along with fractions and decimals (with two distinct learning disabilities, non-obsessive parents) I'm holding on to a decent anecdote. And aghast. I'd commend the math curricula 'Everyday Mathematics' btw.
Posted by: Al on February 14, 2005 09:23 AMinteresting = interested.
Posted by: Michele S on February 14, 2005 09:28 AMWell, with all the knee-jerking about this report, nobody seems to have done any real checking on what the report really says.
It seems that this is simply the Fordham Foundations opinion about the teaching methods used, without objective test data.
It also seems that they've done this sort of thing before. Hawaii was given a similar grade, and decided to put out some data to counter Fordham's opinion.
http://lilinote.k12.hi.us/STATE/COMM/DOEPRESS.NSF/0/d2fc425fda585c8b0a256f80001bbdd8/$FILE/Fordham%20Rebuttal-01.05.05.pdf
Fordham seems to have more of a political agenda (pro charter schools, anti teacher's union) than an educational agenda. While I've heard some good arguments on both those topics, they were from people that admitted their agenda up front, rather than trying to hide it behind a false face.
This seems to be the kind of thing that people often accuse the Democrats of doing. Trotting out "it's for the children" to forward a political agenda.
Show me hard test scores if you want to impress me.
When my fellow "lefties" put out "warm and fuzzy" reports that have no real data, people on this board are among the first to raise the BS flag. Is there some reason you're willing to let this one fly, other than that you like what it says?
Posted by: John Barelli on February 14, 2005 09:36 AMBecause it matches observed anecdotal evidence, instead of refuting any of it. The report's summary for Washington can be summarized as "The _standards_ are too low." That matches my observation at a long list of points: my daughters' peers, college entrance requirements across time, and interactions with several high school math classes.
And we're going to _lower_ the standards to pass people on the WASL instead of figuring out how to teach. This isn't social studies (where the subject matter morphs), this is _math_.
Posted by: Al on February 14, 2005 10:11 AM"Because it matches observed anecdotal evidence, instead of refuting any of it."
Ok, my "anecdotal evidence" is over twenty years of watching the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) test scores as a Personnelman and then a Navy Counselor, and more recently as a classroom volunteer reading tutor.
I'm raising the BS flag.
This report says what some conservatives want to hear, without providing any test data. Had a liberal outfit put out this kind of "report" you would be screaming for hard data while calling this a political snow job. You'd be right.
This report draws a conclusion that is what some people want to hear. When I see a fuzzy report like this that agrees with my position on a topic, it makes me nervous. I tend to go re-check my own opinion.
Now, as to lowering the WASL standards, I agree with you. They should not be lowered.
Posted by: John Barelli on February 14, 2005 11:37 AMOpinions do matter. The opinion of the NCTM that their standards were good enough to be recommended to states for adoption (even though they acknowledged they had not been tested for effectiveness), was still hugely influential. And the opinion of experts in mathematics who say ‘look, your blueprint for math education will not prepare your students for college-level math, because it falls short in these specific ways’ is significant, and should be looked at seriously, and not dismissed as merely political.
There simply isn’t much “hard data” at this point, because many of the standards are too new to have relevant data, and because state test scores don’t disclose which districts (or school, or teachers, for that matter) decided not to rely on their state guidelines, or how many students in a district have been tutored.
That said, this report tries to cut through that. It looks at the performance of four urban CA school districts (representing 67,000 students) that were early adopters of California’s anti-NCTM standards in 1998, and compared their SAT-9 performance (through 2002) to the rest of the state. The results: the early adopters increased their scores by 24 to 40 percentile points, an average increase of 30 percentile points, compared to a statewide increase of 19 points. Also, while the statewide rate of disadvantaged students is 47%, these 67,000 students had a disadvantaged rate ranging from 64 to 78%.
The link is here:
www.nychold.com/report-wbwh-040619.pdf
The reasons given for supporting CPM include:
• A strong instructional program that can be used with ease by new mathematics teachers and adopted easily by experienced mathematics teachers
• Student –centered and engaging
• Explicitly teaches problem-solving skills and provides rich problems for students to solve
• An integrated mathematics program that also puts a strong focus on algebra and geometry
• Clear, helpful support materials for students and parents
• Basic skills development and practice
• Applications of concepts and skills
• Provides students with explicit instructions for developing study skills and how to read a math text book
• Book comes in paperback, two-volume format so is convenient for students to carry
Though not specifically given as a reason in support of CPM, it was noted that teachers would receive 80 hours of training to roll out this program. What does that work out to, about $2000 per teacher? (Who wanted CPM?)
I have not found a report on the results of the May 8th committee meeting where the reversal of opinion was announced, nor can I find minutes of the June meeting when the new math curriculum is supposed to have been adopted.
Needless to say, the CPM program was adopted as the district standard. My son takes it. I find the program to be fairly repulsive. The concept seems to be that children are grouped into work teams, and they just dive in to solve problems from the textbook. The teacher acts as a facilitator, that is, the kids teach themselves as much as possible, and the teacher watches over them to make sure they don't get into trouble. The beauty of this program, is you don't really need to be a mathematics expert to teach it. As long as each work team has at least one kid who knows math, the teams function beautifully. Get the picture? Who wanted CPM being taught in our schools, anyway?
I have searched the web for more informaiton on CPM. Here are links that I have found.
Pro-CPM websites
================
ENC Online: Exemplary and Promising Mathematics...
http://www.enc.org/professional/federalresources/exemplary/promising/document.shtm?input=CDS-000496-496_7.htm
Intervention Strategies for Underprepared Stude...
http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~rgibson/rouge_forum/newspaper/summer2001/Intervention.htm
Anti-CPM websites
=================
CPM Math: College Preparatory Mathematics
http://www.math.nyu.edu/mfdd/braams/links/cpm.html
Content Review
http://www.mathematicallycorrect.com/cpmwb.htm
Math method not working for some
http://www.press-enterprise.com/newsarchive/1998/04/26/893547127.html
Santa Monica Mirror Article
http://www.smmirror.com/volume3/issue20/new_textbooks_do.asp
Too Much PR
http://www.mathematicallycorrect.com/cpmpr.htm
The main selling point of CPM seems to be that it aligns well with the Mathematics portion of the Washington Assessment of Student Learning, WASL. This is the state-wide math curriculum given the "F" in the Thomas B. Fordham study. So as I see it, Washington State has developed a
flawed mathematics learning standard, and Issaquah School District has purchased a flawed math textbook and curriculum to implment that standard. How did we come to this?
"[I]f you serve a child a rotten hamburger in America, federal, state, and local agencies will investigate you, summon you, close you down, whatever. But if you provide a child with a rotten education, nothing happens, except that you're liable to be given more money to do it with. Well, we've discovered that money alone isn't the answer." --Ronald Reagan
Posted by: Ken on February 14, 2005 03:29 PMWe were adopting a new math curriculum. Board members asked why, when math for K-6 grade levels hasn't changed in the past 2000 years.
Answer: because. Teachers wanted the new stuff. I asked to look at the textbooks. I'm not a math expert, but can do basic arithmetic. Here's where I stopped reading the books: kindergarten 'math' lesson teaching the concept of 'half.' "What is half? Half is fair. It is when you break a cookie for yourself and a friend and it is fair." Huh? The book didn't attempt to teach the concept of "equal" or "same," but used a values-laden concept like fair!
Next problem, same school board. Question of using calculators came up. We didn't call them manipulators then. Board members were all conservatives, so I wasn't surprised when they demurred and laughed at the same time.
John Barelli, please note: Teachers said studies showed kids did better in math using calculators. I asked for copies of the 'studies,' but eventually had to call the state dept of ed myself to get a copy of the 'studies' the teachers cited. It was one 'study' that was a summary of other 'studies.' Only ONE of the dozen or so cited studies showed slight/i> improvement in math scores by students using calculators. The other 'studies' defined success as teachers reporting that students liked using the calculators, or had more fun in math class when they were using them.
In other words, even when 'educators' say
"studies prove this is good," the studies must be closely examined to see if that was actually the case.
John Barelli, you said: "Ok, my "anecdotal evidence" is over twenty years of watching the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) test scores as a Personnelman and then a Navy Counselor, and more recently as a classroom volunteer reading tutor."
You didn't say what you saw as you watched those test scores. Did the scores go up, down or sideways? Were the tests testing the same material over that 20 year period, or did the tests, like the SATs, continually reduce the content and reset the standard, so scores could go up?
Also, some posters here have a problem with
"opinion" versus "analysis."
Opinion: I think education today stinks!
Analysis: Fordham Foundation discussion of specifics of current academic curricula and standards compared to an ideal curriculum and standards.
"Did the scores go up, down or sideways? Were the tests testing the same material over that 20 year period, or did the tests, like the SATs, continually reduce the content and reset the standard, so scores could go up?"
Actually, the tests got slightly tougher over the years. Scores stayed roughly the same.
"Opinion: I think education today stinks!
Analysis: Fordham Foundation discussion of specifics of current academic curricula and standards compared to an ideal curriculum and standards."
That's the problem. Fordham Foundation puts out a "report" without giving the specifics of its analysis, nor any specific data supporting its conclusions. In essence, they're giving an opinion without conducting an analysis.
If correct, the report will not be accepted by anyone that could actually do something about it. They can (legitimately) say that the Fordham Foundation is simply promoting a political agenda, rather than trying to solve a problem.
Are the SAT scores for students in the states that got an "A" significantly higher than for those in states that got an "F"? While I've heard it argued that the SAT is easier today than in the past, we should be able to compare "A" states with "F" states taking the same test. (I would presume that if they were, Fordham would have said so.)
If incorrect, it will just act as fodder for everyone that has a grudge (deserved or not) against the current system.
Posted by: John Barelli on February 15, 2005 01:36 PM