I sent the following looking for some answers in the Instruction Materials Review process----
The following idea needs to be addressed.
Check the PISA and TIMSS results.
In regard to the Instructional Materials Review group's clear preference for NCTM Standards based programs with differentiated instruction, where did this preference come from?
There is very little support for this when looking at International results.
At an Early meeting of the SBE MAP Dr Vincent of WSU who has a clear preference for these kinds of program stated that even Japan had revised its program to be more USA like.
Japan's 2002 Standards revision did exactly what Dr Vincent contented.
From 2003 to 2006 Japan saw its PISA math score drop a statistically significant 11 points. Japan normally adopted new math standards every 10 years. Japan is now looking at a mid-course correction because of clear errors made in the adoption of the 2002 Math Standards.
It appears given what I've seen in this initial IMR draft that WA has little hope of correcting much as our process is so similar to the processes that produced our decade of math disaster that it is likely our math disaster will continue with only slight modification. Washington appears to have an infrastructure of Math decision-makers in place that are incapable of making significant correction.
If in fact we are interested in bringing about internationally competitive mathematics in WA state, everyone needs to recognize that the IMR draft in current form has no chance of bringing that about. This draft document even with lots of modifications - has No chance of ever becoming a suitable tool for IMR.
Given that whoever was on the initial team that produced this document missed the mark by miles, there seems little hope to expect the significant improvement needed to produce what the SBE and the legislature hoped for will ever occur.
To continue (from earlier communications) with the flaws so rampant in this IMR first draft:
The following assures this State of producing more of the same:
• NCTM Principles and Standards for School Mathematics
• Choosing a Standards-Based Mathematics Curriculum
– Chapter 6: -- Developing and Applying Selection Criteria
– Appendix: Sample Selection Criteria
The appendix cites the following:
Appendix ---
Sample Selection Instruments :
Elementary Program Selection Criteria
reprinted with permission from Arlington Public Schools, Arlington, MA
K-8 Mathematics Adoption Pilot Evaluation
reprinted with permission from San Diego City Schools, San Diego, CA
(These produced the San Diego materials that we found so lacking when compared with other non-reform districts in CA like Sacramento in the Hook-Bishop-Hook study )
Mathematics Materials Selection Criteria
reprinted with permission from Missoula County Public Schools, Missoula, MT
Reaching Every Teacher High School Selection Criteria
reprinted with permission from Waltham Public Schools, Waltham, MA, and Education Development
Center, Inc., Newton, MA
Project 2061 Curriculum Selection Criteria
reprinted with permission from the American Association for the Advancement of Science
Evaluation Criteria from the U.S. Department of Education’s Expert Panel on Mathematics and Science Education
(What is the matter with this picture? the above reference to US dept of Ed is the document that produced the exemplary and promising programs of 1999 under then US Secretary of Education Richard Riley. That would be the same group fo exemplary and promising programs that the national research council in 2004 said have yet to provide any evidence of positive academic achievement. These are the same programs that have produced a widening achievement gaps for Low Income and non-Asian minority students in Seattle, and Bellevue etc.)
Could you please provide me with copyright information on each of the above documents?
It seems we are trying to escape the USA math mess by using the same selection processes for materials that produced the original mess.
Sincerely,
Danaher M. Dempsey, Jr.
Who directed Project 2061 and was with the AAAS? Pinky Nelson, now project director for the MSP Grant of North Puget Sound and Director of SMATE at WWU.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.project2061.org/publications/articles/articles/sacnas.htm
GN: That's another of the big challenges. I think today that the minority community is, in a large part, left out of this discussion and this is one of the reasons we purposefully called our description of literacy Science for All Americans. In the next century, we can't afford to have just a white male elite that's running the scientific community. Our notion is that by promoting literacy, universal literacy, for all students, that if everyone graduates from high school science literate, you're already increasing the pool for those who are actually going to go on and become scientists and engineers by an enormous amount.
SACNAS: What is Project 2061 specifically doing to address that isssue within the organization?
GN: Our goal is mostly focused on everybody, so we tend not to work specifically. We don't have a program, say, that's focused on Hispanic kids, but we try to work with those areas where the biggest need is. We're working with a lot of urban areas. And when you do that you're naturally getting those kids. So, we work in Philadelphia and San Antonio, San Francisco and San Diego.
Notice his banner: success for all.
ReplyDeleteThis is a one-liner and you will see the phrase in almost all interviews that help identify the particular reform movement from other projects. The locations are also of interest and the time frame. So once again we are tracking foundations and who's serving on the boards to help follow where the money is going and how the funds are being used.
Rezko and the Challenge Fund for instance. Why was there no improvement in student performance despite the addition of about $25 million per year for 5 years? Mind-boggling when you consider that in Philadelphia, the Annenberg fund provided $50 million, but the district had to spend $100 million in matching funds, and what did they get back in return? Nothing.
Green Dot Schools sued LAUSD in order to get more access to school buildings to open more schools???
Broad Foundation donated property so LAUSD could build a new high school? It was a superfund site and cost the district $100 million to clean up the hazaardous waste.
The $23.3 million in grants breaks down as follows:
-- KIPP will receive $12 million to expand open-enrollment KIPP public charter schools in Los Angeles from two to six by 2010, including two new KIPP elementary schools and two new KIPP middle schools in underserved areas of Los Angeles. With these funds, KIPP plans to serve a total of more than 2,000 Los Angeles students in kindergarten through eighth grade by 2013.
-- Aspire Public Schools will receive $5 million to open 13 new,
high-quality, public charter schools in Los Angeles over the
next four years, including several new elementary and middle schools in Huntington Park and Carson, areas that currently have lengthy waiting lists for charter schools. The new funds will bring to 16 the total number of Aspire schools in Los Angeles by 2011 that will serve 5,600 K-12 students.
-- Pacific Charter School Development, Inc. will receive a $6
million interest-free loan to leverage more than $30 million
in project financing to create more than 6,000 new,state-of-the-art campus seats in Los Angeles' most underserved neighborhoods in the next 10 years. PCSD will also receive $333,000 for operations.
Strong American Schools
Steering Board Who's Who
Roy Romer, the former governor of Colorado and a former chairman of the Democratic National Committee, serves as chairman of the organization.
Marc S. Lampkin, the deputy campaign manager for the 2000 Bush-Cheney presidential campaign, acts as the executive director.
Strong American Schools / ED in 08 Steering Committee
Roy Romer
Chairman
Former Governor of Colorado
Former Superintendent of Los Angeles Unified School District
Eli Broad
Founder, The Broad Foundations
Allan Golston
President of U.S. Program, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
Janet Murguía
President and CEO, National Council of La Raza
Louis Gerstner
Former CEO of IBM
John Engler
Former Governor of Michigan
President of the National Association of Manufacturers
Marc Lampkin
Executive Director
Before you convince Seattle Public Schools that Singapore (US standards) is the best choice overall -
ReplyDelete1. you will have to find new management - your administrators were hired and trained by the foundations.
2. stop accepting grants with strings attached from private donors.
3. stop the silly and unsavory practices that are currently undermining support programs and alternative schools. Whoever heard of classrooms where no talking is allowed whatsoever. a nearly impossible task for any teenager, let alone a potential dropout.
4. start by introducing appropriate curriculum and direct teaching practices.
5. Opt for 1 track - 1 curriculum, so that all students are granted access to equal education. Once a student is put in the low remedial track its nearly impossible to take any real math or academic subject until community college. Its easy to make a test that denies a ninth grader the opportunity to take biology. The legal challenge is that the test results do not apply to all children. Even so, lets say the child that wants to take biology eventually fails (this should not be met by derisive remarks, but should be applauded as an attempt to do the right thing. We attach a stigma to failure, when we should be looking at policies that move children forward into careers and an education that prepares them for the future. It should not be relegated to seat time and baiting teachers which will only fill students with shame or regret.
There's no pride, you see, in going to school in a lower academic track - it yields nothing fruitful for the future. Better to say that you attempted college and failed, then attempted to sit in a high school class and made some idle chat with your neighbor - something gossipy like the music you downloaded on Limewire....