Sunday, January 20, 2008

Bellevue Video shows Dana Center leaders explaining how to ..............Mislead the Math Public

Pushing of Math-O-Babble continues this week.

Tuesday January 22 at Roosevelt High School Seattle
at 6:00 PM:
Dr. Bergeson conducts a forum on the Current Math Standards Rewrite being done to satisfy the State Board of Education and the law 2SHB 1906.

Unless draft #2 is significantly improved from draft #1
the rewrite clearly fails to satisfy 2SHB 1906.

The video below from You Tube shows the Director of the Dana Center Uri Treisman and Phil Daro who is also from the Dana Center explaining how to mislead the public.

Long Version

Short Version:

In addition to teaching outright deception also particularly disturbing in the video is the idea that reform math will stand on its own without supplementation. Dr. Treisman insists that all supplementation is bad. This is all in apparent contradiction to the following of the recommended state and international standards mentioned in 2SHB 1906. This should be a Huge Problem - in draft #1 this rewrite team is not following the law. Draft #2 is to be published on Line tomorrow.

The Dana Center ($750,000+) was hired by Dr. Bergeson at a cost in excess of 6 times the well qualified low bidder StandardsWorks ($130,000) also rejected was WestEd ($255,000). Dr Bergeson prefers to hire those who are already pre-disposed to her views on Mathematics and selected rewrite panel members who share her math philosophy with perhaps a few exceptions. That however is not what the law 2SHB 1906 requires of her.

A note:
.. the TIMSS studies 4th grade and 8th grade performance internationally
-- the USA is very poor at both levels.
The PISA test is given every three years to 15 year olds.
.. The USA was the worst English Speaking nation in 2003.
-- Then in 2006 we were significantly worse than in 2003.
The only industrialized nation that the USA beat was Italy.

On PISA Math and Science the USA is thrashed by Canada.

No one wishes to return to the school math of 1955. To get to a competitive international position in math will require rejection of the reform Math pushed by Dr. Bergeson and OSPI. It is time to emulate what very successful math nations do. That is precisely what 2SHB 1906 calls for in following the August 30th 2007 recommendations from Strategic Teaching.

Dr Bergeson is defying the law if this rewrite continues in its current direction.

Other nations believe that arithmetic skills lead to algebra skills that then lead to calculus skills and have the Data to prove it. Dr Bergeson believes otherwise and has no data to support her belief. In fact she cherry-picks the data or makes it up (example Washington has an SAT participation rate of 70% according to her. It is actually 53%)

Math remediation rates for recent high school graduates entering community college are incredibly high, but Dr. Bergeson wishes to continue this failing path. Will the Legislature allow this sham to continue?

It is hard not to improve from a grade of "F" but becoming internationally competitive that is a brand new concept.

A summary of our current Math Standards "F" mess.
Scores from the overall review:

Depth Washington earns a 1
because numerous topics are missing and many of the topics that are included are underdeveloped.

Grade-to-grade coherence Washington earns a 1
because there are serious interruptions in the content, and single topics are sometimes scattered throughout the document, making it difficult to determine how a topic develops over grade levels.

Measurability Washington earns a 1
because the content is often vaguely defined and because verbs are unobservable and therefore not measurable.

Accessibility Washington earns a 1
because the format makes the standards difficult for most people to understand and easily use.

Balance Washington earns a 1
because the document underemphasizes mathematical content and algorithms.

The central problem is that crucial core content, such as fluency with the standard arithmetic algorithms, algebra II, and most of geometry, is missing.

Without the core content, the traits of grade-to-grade coherence, measurability, accessibility, and balance also are missing.

Here is an excerpt from 2SHB 1906:
(3) By September 30, 2007, the state board of education shall recommend to the superintendent of public instruction revised essential academic learning requirements and grade level expectations in mathematics.
The recommendations shall be based on:
(a) Considerations of clarity, rigor, content, depth, coherence from grade to grade, specificity, accessibility, and measurability;
(b) Study of:
(i) Standards used in countries whose students demonstrate high performance on the (TIMSS) trends in international mathematics and science study and the (PISA) programme for international student assessment;
(ii) College readiness standards;
(iii) The national council of teachers of mathematics focal points and the national assessment of educational progress content frameworks;
(iv) Standards used by three to five other states, including California, and the nation of Singapore; and
(c) Consideration of information presented during public comment periods.

(4) By January 31, 2008, the superintendent of public instruction shall revise the essential academic learning requirements and the grade level expectations for mathematics and present the revised standards to the state board of education and the education committees of the senate
and the house of representatives as required by RCW 28A.655.070(4)
The superintendent shall adopt the revised essential academic learning requirements and grade level expectations unless otherwise directed by the legislature during the 2008 legislative session.


Michael Paul Goldenberg said...

You wrote: "This is all in apparent contraction to the following of the recommended state and international standards mentioned in 2SHB 1906."

As a rule, I don't think Uri makes much use of contractions, Dan.

Claiming that he and Phil Daro explain how to mislead the public may not be actionable, but it borders on libel in my book. I don't know Phil Daro except in passing, but I know enough about Uri Treisman to state that he is a man of high integrity. He also knows more math than you'll ever know, and vastly more about issues of teaching it effectively. Finally, he's not a lunatic, which is more than can be fairly said of you. Other than that, I hold your writing in the highest esteem.

Anonymous said...

Curious that you use an alias. You are Markov Chaney? I would sure like to know how you know so much. Do you know Glenda Lappan by any chance?

Posted by vmlc1952 January 22, 2008
If Markov Chaney wants to support Moore-McConnel's style of leadership, that is certainly his right. However, I would certainly invite him to share with us a list of her acomplishments for the past year.

I don't see how anyone in Michigan could possibly be involved enough with our school district to have enough facts regarding the need to issue directives. I could read a Michigan Newspaper everyday and not be knowledgeable about the daily operations of the district.

I don't mean to be rude here, but I really think the use of the word lynching is appalling here. That is a deep insult and has no place in this discussion.

Anonymous said...

Nogal! Goldenberg AKA Markov, founder of Him and his pankrts is on the committee deciding who gets an nsf grant. Out doing public relations for his soulmates. He plays a cheap charivari. Not worth a kilo of red kak. Daro, Schoenfeld, and Treisman are bobojans way back.

Schoenfeld, Alan, Hugh Burkhardt, Phil Daro, Jim Ridgway, Judah
Schwartz, and Sandra Wilcox. Balanced Assessment for the Mathematics
Curriculum: High School Assessment. White Plains, N.Y.:
Dale Seymour Publications, 1999.

dan dempsey said...

Dear Michael Goldenberg,

Thanks for the spelling correction.
It should have been contradiction not contraction. I've corrected it.

I find it interesting that you seem to imply that you know about my effectiveness as a teacher. Do you have any supporting data? Perhaps I misunderstood your implication.

I think you should try less name calling. How did you determine I was a lunatic? Is that a term you use for all with whom you disagree?
Attack the person rather than discuss the ideas ...hummm questionable tactic.

I am currently teaching in a state that has had a large decline in mathematical readiness for college over the last decade. The Seattle school district has had a continually growing math achievement gap for Blacks, Hispanics, and the poor over the last decade.

In the Quality Counts 2008 report Washington's performance at #48 out of 51 on Gap change for the poor in 8th grade math from 2003-2007, strikes me as a pathetic performance. A large number of Washington schools have moved to Connected Math. Our State education office rated Everyday Math, TERC/Investigations and Connected Math very highly. The results have been dismal. Core-Plus and Interactive Math Program are also highly rated by the state office. As more and more districts adopted these materials students and parents grew more frustrated with increasing lack of proficiency and homework frustration.

Everyday Math now has a market penetration of 30+% in the USA. About 40 school districts are attempting to teach children with Everyday Math in Washington State. There are many other elementary reform math texts in use largely because of state recommendations not because these materials have been shown to be effective.

I live in a nation that by international comparison is getting worse in math.
I look forward to your suggestions for how to improve our current math situation in Washington State.

Please refrain from name calling on this blog.

You said:
Claiming that Uri and Phil Daro explain how to mislead the public may not be actionable, but it borders on libel in my book.

Did you watch the video? Phil Daro is most certainly explaining how to mislead the public.

Do you have any comments on the Hook - Bishop - Hook report from California comparing districts that persisted with reform materials (LAUSD & San Diego) with demographically similar districts that did not ( like Sacramento ) which switched to materials based on satisfing internationally competitive standards.

Last year Seattle Officially adopted CMP2 and Tacoma switched to Saxon. At the middle school level score changes for Blacks and Hispanics were markedly improved over the previous year in Tacoma. Not so in Seattle.

I am not a huge Saxon Fan. I much prefer Singapore Math. It is interesting to compare two charter schools in LA that are fairly close together: The Accelerated School and Bright Star Middle Charter Academy. Four years ago TAS adopted Everyday Math and Connected Math Project.

Bright Star was just beginning.
TAS has accomplished little in the way of math improvement over the last four years. Bright Star on the other hand has used a traditional math program and has spectacular results.

Bright Star is nearly 100% Hispanic and nearly 100% free & reduced meals.

Both of these schools focus on college readiness.

I am also a big fan of the reform Math materials out of the Math Learning Center in Oregon. These materials do not jump around in the largely incomprehensible manner of Everyday Math.

A small number of required topics at each grade level in the early grades teaching Singapore Math supplemented with M.L.C. materials now that would be a program; by comparison Everyday Math is bad joke.

Anonymous said...

Great post - its about time this group of quacks was exposed. If the personnel at NCTM, MAA and the NSF had created standards for research in education, instead of allowing their personal bias and greed to interfere with the evaluation of their programs, the US wouldn't be faced with a crisis in public education. A complete lack of credibility. Had the media and parents listened to teachers and professors during the early piloting of such programs during the era of urban initiatives - had the authors been honest to the public, we would not be facing the a problem of such magnitude as a regional math/science intitiative. It is the arrogance of a few profesors and the leadership teams that have caused so many students, parents and teachers to suffer because of poor quality academic programs. They have been dishonest to the media and the public.