As many are now attempting to make high school graduation mean college ready, I thought that Peter Callaghan's December 2007 article was worth a rereading.
Callaghan mentions HB 1209 of long ago and shows how it was misapplied.
College prep isn’t the answer for all students.
Long before No Child Left Behind was the dominant education buzz phrase in the nation, we had our own.
HB 1209
It should be noted that current SPI candidate Randy Dorn had a major hand in creation HB 1209... and that Dr Bergeson then distorted the intent of HB 1209 into the current mess we find ourselves.
OSPI under Dr Bergeson and her administration continue to demonstrate little regard for laws as written.
HB 1906 was botched so badly the legislature created SB6534. The ability of OSPI to follow SB6534 is no better than OSPI's observance of HB1906.
From the article:
All Children Can Learn.
That’s how former Gov. Booth Gardner described his goal for school reform in Washington when he launched it in 1991. It meant that all kids have the capacity to learn, and it’s up to the adults to figure out how.
But it also meant that Washington should stop discarding certain kids as unteachable, stop shoveling them into meaningless classes and stop giving them meaningless diplomas.
It appears that the current thrust is to have these students drop out.
Dr Bergson declares it is just great that 91% of those who are left can pass WASL English and Reading (Only).... NO Math needed...
(Question how many teacher hours and evaluator scoring dollars went into the Collection of Evidence to give a WASL pass to those who could not pass WASL tests that have been watered down over the last decade??)
About 35% of the original Freshman in the class of 2008 did not meet the requirements to graduate most because they are no longer in the class of 2008.... many are not in school. It looks to me that we are still discarding certain kids.
2008-1991= 17 years later .... the last 12 under Dr. Bargeson
How some current legislators and State Board of Education members are taking us from All Children Can Learn to all children will be college ready upon high school graduation is disturbing given the results of the last 12 years.
college ready?
ReplyDeletesince I was a teenager in the 70's in 12% unemployment massachusetts, LOTS of college degrees = lots of debt and access to what kind of jobs?
Let's get REAL.
Since the rise of the British and American empires and until the 1940's, there were lots of jobs which didn't really didn't require much of anything you got in a college education, but, since it was mainly the affluent who went to college the degree requirement made sure only the affluent had access to these jobs.
The Post WW2 American affluence (uh ... remember there was a war, destroying most economies in the world EXCEPT ours ...??? anyone remember that ??) allowed a massive expansion of public sector and private sector bureaucratic jobs which weren't and aren't that skilled, but, if you require a college degree you have less applicants to sort through.
since the oil induced recessions of the 70's, and through the debt financied 'expansions' of the last 25+ years, it has become harder to get into the middle class, easier to fall out, harder to get back in, easier to stay out, BUT, we've had mass expansion of shopping mall jobs, AND, jobs with spreadsheets justifying management theft and incompetence in health 'care', public works, education, 'security' and 'defense' ...
Go To College to get a job where a college degree requirement is just a filter to cut down on the number of applicants? that is 'smart' for the top 20% in family income and or household income and or personal income and or family wealth.
those of us in the bottom 80% SHOULD go to college, BUT, let's get REAL degrees in biology / math or chemistry / math or engineering or finance at the university of chicago -
LOTS of jobs require college degrees, but, if you are in the bottom 80% and you aren't getting REAL skills in your college degree, you're most likely gonna end up with a job at starbucks and a MOUNTAIN of debt as all the affluent kids get the well paying soft jobs cuz their families have the ... affluence!! and connections to get their incompetent offspring into those cush jobs.
(see al gore and george bush!)
I think you're missing the point. Singapore made college readiness a goal and they furnished all students a means with which to do that.
ReplyDeleteThey had to maximize the productivity of students. That's what learning algebra in the eighth grade entails. You can't do it with kids sitting idle in classrooms for eight years.
They're thinking, just not what you want them to be thinking about.
If HS prepares students for college. Then colleges should prepare students for work. That's a different story.
I don't mind a high school graduate working a cash register, so long as they know they have the opportunity to go to college. Many people don't see themselves prepared for entering college.
A college graduate working a cash register at Starbucks tells a whole different story. That's a mismatch and it means our society is less productive than it could be. The loss of efficiency means there are other factors at work, but school can't control that.
Look at the jobs posted by the State of Washington....you will find many that require a College degree ...Then read the job description ..it is clear that at least 50% of these could be done by a motivated high school graduate.. but why require just that when we can get the populace to contribute tuition dollars to High Ed institutions and keep these filled to beyond capacity for no apparent reason.... except to keep those employed there employed.
ReplyDeleteCollege Ready? ya sure u betcha
If we want to increase the number of college ready we need to start at the bottom k-3 and begin doing what works there instaed of the exact opposite.
ReplyDeleteI am not exagerating here in math...
I mean we are doing the exact opposite of what has been shown to work. SEE PFT.
What the reform movement has done is maximized profits at the expense of learning - ability tracking maximizes profits.
ReplyDeleteTo achieve Singapore's objective you have to maximize learning.
What is Singapore's objective? All children will complete a year of standard algebra in eighth grade. The emphasis is on the methodology of solving algebra problems. It can be done, but you have plan carefully.
This is from an AMS Bulletin dtd1998 as well as the last article you referenced.
Burrill: It’s a multilayered effort. First, we have teams of five writers for each grade-level band: prekindergarten to second grade, third to fifth grade, sixth to eighth grade, and ninth to twelfth grade. Joan Ferrini-Mundy is the overall chair for the writing teams. Second, we have a commission, chaired by Mary Lindquist, that oversees the interaction between the writers and the rest of the community.
88 NOTICES OF THE AMS VOLUME 45, NUMBER 1
We wanted to include the perspectives of other math-related groups, so the commission started
what we call Association Review Groups (ARGs).
Through the Conference Board of Mathematical Sciences we asked organizations if they would like to
form an ARG, whose task would be to respond to questions on which the Standards writers would like input. At last count we had
twelve of these ARGs. The chair of
the ARG for the AMS is Roger
Howe.
Most of the current ARGs are related in some way to mathematics education. We intend to expand this network to include
organizations like the PTA
so that we hear the voice of the parents, the community, and others with a vested interest in mathematics education. We have also enlisted support from people who have strong knowledge in particular areas such as
technology or equity issues.
Notices: I’d like to ask you about the notion of mathematical proof, which most mathematicians
think is extremely important to get across in mathematics
education.
Is this going to be an important aspect of the updated Standards?
Burrill: I can’t articulate what the Standards writers have yet to write, but I can say that I think most of us agree that proof is a very important part of mathematics. So it would seem to me that this belief is going to be reflected in their work, particularly if the concern of the AMS is reinforced, as I think it will be, by other groups.
Burrill went from the Connected Math staff to the CPMP Program.
http://mathforum.org/kb/thread.jspa?forumID=206&threadID=483366&messageID=1479074
In 1978, Abt Associates released a Project Follow Through evaluation
report that included a comparative analysis of eleven of the models.
Despite major inadequacies in the quasi-experimental design and
inconsistencies in implementation, the report gave nine major
findings, including the conclusion that "Models that emphasize basic
skill succeeded better than other models in helping children gain
these skills." Soon thereafter, a Ford Foundation panel of experts
refuted this finding, pointing to problems with classification of the
models, inadequate measurement, and a flawed statistical analysis .
Moreover, the panel pointed out that scope of the measurement was
biased toward skills. The evaluation did not deliver on the original promise to the sponsors that new instruments would be developed to assess other important but elusive educational goals. In fact, no new instruments were developed for the evaluation. The panel did
agree, however, with the report's primary finding: "The effectiveness
of each Follow Through model varied substantially among sites;
overall model averages varied little in comparison."
Wesley Becker and Siegfried Engelmann, faculty members at the
University of Oregon and authors of the Direct Instruction model,
disagreed with the Ford Foundation panel's conclusions. In a paper
presented at AERA in 1978, Becker compared the effectiveness of nine
of the models. In his analysis, the Direct Instruction model ranked
higher in "affective" (eg self-esteem) areas as well as academic
outcomes.
An examination of Abt Associates' report reveals that Becker's Direct Instruction model does rank higher than the other models on average, although that model showed the same variability
across sites as the other models.
Consistent with Abt Associates' and the Ford Foundation panel's
reading of the results, it is possible that the high ranking of the Direct Instruction model was due to nothing more than chance in the selection of sites.
Even if we accept that the high ranking was not due to chance, and even if we accept Becker's statistical analysis, the conclusion that "the traditional, 'direct instruction' method was the most effective" is not supported as a general educational conclusion, in my view, because:
Becker's paper compares not methods of teaching but Follow Through models, only a few of which even sound like methods of teaching; Neither Becker's nor Abt Associates' analysis takes into account the degree of implementation of the models in any of the sites; The range of measurement instruments was not broad enough;
Project Follow Through was intended to improve achievement by
disadvantaged students on traditional tests; and Project Follow Through addressed only grades K-3.
Now, Becker's was but one research paper in the tenth year of a 30
year project. I have found abstracts of other articles, including some longitudinal studies with conclusions like, "Achievement and college acceptance results consistently favored the Follow Through groups over control groups with strongest effects in reading." None of the other articles, however, appear to be as bold as Becker's.
I hope this explanation has been helpful.
Bradford Findell
January 13, 1997
As with everything you read, you have to research it more deeply - Who is ABT?
(This is from Source Watch)
For one, Abt associates works closely with a non-profit called Foundation for Peace and Democracy (FUNPADEM)
"FUNPADEM was founded in 1988 by Rodrigo Madrigal Nieto, the former president of the Costa Rican Congress of Industries. During the 1980s, Madrigal was a member of the Kissinger commission that investigated U.S. intervention in Central America. The commissioners provided the whitewash for the death squads that U.S. forces armed and trained in El Salvador and Honduras and for the contra army organized by the CIA in Nicaragua."
ABT Associates wrote an infamous program called Politica in the 60's.
"During the 1960s, Abt Associates helped the Pentagon and CIA with Project Camelot, a model for destabilizing foreign governments used in Chile in 1973. Abt Associates developed a simulation game called Politica that drew information from a computer linking the files of the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency and the State Department. Politica was used in training Third World police and in trying to predict which social forces could be mobilized against leftist governments
------------
One of the best essays that details the NCTM revisions and the TIMSS findings were written by Bill Quirk.
http://www.wgquirk.com/NCTM2000.html
And I think its important to also recall that Roger Howe mentioned above was involved in the rewriting of NCTM standards I. This is a review written by Roger Howe
http://www.ams.org/notices/199908/rev-howe.pdf
You read this essay and its more of a rant at teacher's expertise.
This is from Bill Quirk's essay and its a response to RH:
"U.S. teachers fared poorly when asked questions related to the teaching of:
Subtraction with regrouping
Multidigit multiplication
Dividing fractions
Don't blame the teachers! None of these topics appear in PSSM or the PSSM Draft."
http://www.ams.org/notices/199707/comm-calif2.pdf
At the same time that California is revising its mathematics framework, the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) is undertaking a wide-ranging effort to revise by the year 2000 the NCTM Standards, which in 1989 sparked this round of reform. The NCTM is soliciting ideas from a wide range of mathematical and education groups, as well as from any individuals who wish to comment. The AMS will provide input through a committee it has appointed, chaired by Yale University mathematician Roger Howe. Writing teams have begun to meet to discuss the comments and what revisions are needed to the Standards, and the commission overseeing the entire process will meet in the fall.
What the reform movement has done is maximized profits at the expense of learning - ability tracking maximizes profits.
ReplyDeleteTo achieve Singapore's objective you have to maximize learning.
What is Singapore's objective? All children will complete a year of standard algebra in eighth grade. The emphasis is on the methodology of solving algebra problems. It can be done, but you have plan carefully.
This is from an AMS Bulletin dtd1998 as well as the last article you referenced.
Burrill: It’s a multilayered effort. First, we have teams of five writers for each grade-level band: prekindergarten to second grade, third to fifth grade, sixth to eighth grade, and ninth to twelfth grade. Joan Ferrini-Mundy is the overall chair for the writing teams. Second, we have a commission, chaired by Mary Lindquist, that oversees the interaction between the writers and the rest of the community.
88 NOTICES OF THE AMS VOLUME 45, NUMBER 1
We wanted to include the perspectives of other math-related groups, so the commission started
what we call Association Review Groups (ARGs).
Through the Conference Board of Mathematical Sciences we asked organizations if they would like to
form an ARG, whose task would be to respond to questions on which the Standards writers would like input. At last count we had
twelve of these ARGs. The chair of
the ARG for the AMS is Roger
Howe.
Most of the current ARGs are related in some way to mathematics education. We intend to expand this network to include
organizations like the PTA
so that we hear the voice of the parents, the community, and others with a vested interest in mathematics education. We have also enlisted support from people who have strong knowledge in particular areas such as
technology or equity issues.
Notices: I’d like to ask you about the notion of mathematical proof, which most mathematicians
think is extremely important to get across in mathematics
education.
Is this going to be an important aspect of the updated Standards?
Burrill: I can’t articulate what the Standards writers have yet to write, but I can say that I think most of us agree that proof is a very important part of mathematics. So it would seem to me that this belief is going to be reflected in their work, particularly if the concern of the AMS is reinforced, as I think it will be, by other groups.
Burrill went from the Connected Math staff to the CPMP Program.
http://mathforum.org/kb/thread.jspa?forumID=206&threadID=483366&messageID=1479074
In 1978, Abt Associates released a Project Follow Through evaluation
report that included a comparative analysis of eleven of the models.
Despite major inadequacies in the quasi-experimental design and
inconsistencies in implementation, the report gave nine major
findings, including the conclusion that "Models that emphasize basic
skill succeeded better than other models in helping children gain
these skills." Soon thereafter, a Ford Foundation panel of experts
refuted this finding, pointing to problems with classification of the
models, inadequate measurement, and a flawed statistical analysis .
Moreover, the panel pointed out that scope of the measurement was
biased toward skills. The evaluation did not deliver on the original promise to the sponsors that new instruments would be developed to assess other important but elusive educational goals. In fact, no new instruments were developed for the evaluation. The panel did
agree, however, with the report's primary finding: "The effectiveness
of each Follow Through model varied substantially among sites;
overall model averages varied little in comparison."
Wesley Becker and Siegfried Engelmann, faculty members at the
University of Oregon and authors of the Direct Instruction model,
disagreed with the Ford Foundation panel's conclusions. In a paper
presented at AERA in 1978, Becker compared the effectiveness of nine
of the models. In his analysis, the Direct Instruction model ranked
higher in "affective" (eg self-esteem) areas as well as academic
outcomes.
An examination of Abt Associates' report reveals that Becker's Direct Instruction model does rank higher than the other models on average, although that model showed the same variability
across sites as the other models.
Consistent with Abt Associates' and the Ford Foundation panel's
reading of the results, it is possible that the high ranking of the Direct Instruction model was due to nothing more than chance in the selection of sites.
Even if we accept that the high ranking was not due to chance, and even if we accept Becker's statistical analysis, the conclusion that "the traditional, 'direct instruction' method was the most effective" is not supported as a general educational conclusion, in my view, because:
Becker's paper compares not methods of teaching but Follow Through models, only a few of which even sound like methods of teaching; Neither Becker's nor Abt Associates' analysis takes into account the degree of implementation of the models in any of the sites; The range of measurement instruments was not broad enough;
Project Follow Through was intended to improve achievement by
disadvantaged students on traditional tests; and Project Follow Through addressed only grades K-3.
Now, Becker's was but one research paper in the tenth year of a 30
year project. I have found abstracts of other articles, including some longitudinal studies with conclusions like, "Achievement and college acceptance results consistently favored the Follow Through groups over control groups with strongest effects in reading." None of the other articles, however, appear to be as bold as Becker's.
I hope this explanation has been helpful.
Bradford Findell
January 13, 1997
As with everything you read, you have to research it more deeply - Who is ABT?
(This is from Source Watch)
For one, Abt associates works closely with a non-profit called Foundation for Peace and Democracy (FUNPADEM)
"FUNPADEM was founded in 1988 by Rodrigo Madrigal Nieto, the former president of the Costa Rican Congress of Industries. During the 1980s, Madrigal was a member of the Kissinger commission that investigated U.S. intervention in Central America. The commissioners provided the whitewash for the death squads that U.S. forces armed and trained in El Salvador and Honduras and for the contra army organized by the CIA in Nicaragua."
ABT Associates wrote an infamous program called Politica in the 60's.
"During the 1960s, Abt Associates helped the Pentagon and CIA with Project Camelot, a model for destabilizing foreign governments used in Chile in 1973. Abt Associates developed a simulation game called Politica that drew information from a computer linking the files of the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency and the State Department. Politica was used in training Third World police and in trying to predict which social forces could be mobilized against leftist governments
------------
One of the best essays that details the NCTM revisions and the TIMSS findings were written by Bill Quirk.
http://www.wgquirk.com/NCTM2000.html
And I think its important to also recall that Roger Howe mentioned above was involved in the rewriting of NCTM standards I. This is a review written by Roger Howe
http://www.ams.org/notices/199908/rev-howe.pdf
You read this essay and its more of a rant at teacher's expertise.
This is from Bill Quirk's essay and its a response to RH:
"U.S. teachers fared poorly when asked questions related to the teaching of:
Subtraction with regrouping
Multidigit multiplication
Dividing fractions
Don't blame the teachers! None of these topics appear in PSSM or the PSSM Draft."
http://www.ams.org/notices/199707/comm-calif2.pdf
At the same time that California is revising its mathematics framework, the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) is undertaking a wide-ranging effort to revise by the year 2000 the NCTM Standards, which in 1989 sparked this round of reform. The NCTM is soliciting ideas from a wide range of mathematical and education groups, as well as from any individuals who wish to comment. The AMS will provide input through a committee it has appointed, chaired by Yale University mathematician Roger Howe. Writing teams have begun to meet to discuss the comments and what revisions are needed to the Standards, and the commission overseeing the entire process will meet in the fall.
Here's a link more from the AMS and I think its more silliness - its off-track and has more to do with vision (pertaining to the here and now)
ReplyDeletehttp://www.ams.org/government/views-howe.html
Roger Howe, Yale University
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 1: High school math has different goals. For students who will use math later on--math, science and engineeering majors--high school math should prepare them for more advanced stuff. For these students, technique is fairly important. For others, an appreciation of certain basic ways of thinking would be a satisfactory outcome. It is hard to accommodate these differing goals within one program.
(Translated he says right from the start that we will always have at least two tracks.)
Question 2: I actually have some fairly precise ideas about how I would like to see the high school curriculum change, but that is too complicated to get into here.
So these choices are based on my understanding of the current curriculum.
(He's got plenty to say about the upper elite track)
They are for the science-directed group. Algebraic technique: facility with rational arithmetic, including division and the law of exponents and the Euclidean algorithm; appreciation of the analogy between rational arithmetic and decimal arithmetic, especially for division; completing the square and the quadratic formula; the geometric series; Pascal's triangle, a^2-b^2; systems of linear equations (2x2 and 3x3). Geometry/trig: straight lines, distance, angles; triangle inequality; addition of angles, perpendicularity; angle sum in atriangle; Pythagorean Theorem; geometry of triangles and circles, law of sines and cosines; addition formulas for trig functions, similarity, the basic facts about complex numbers. Beyond this factual/technical base, one would like to have an appreciation of certain aspects of mathematical culture. First, the importance of precision and careful reasoning, with minimal assumptions, that is, the ideas of definition and proof. This would include an appreciation of the field axioms, and their usefulness in rational arithmetic, and a study of the basic facts of syllogistic reasoning (inverse, converse, contrapositive, proof by contradiction). Of course, these days, most of the best students see calculus in high school. I would like to see a lot of attention paid to the idea of limit here, but I don't think it happens much. I am not sure exactly where to say this, but I think it important to emphasize that mathematics should not be conceived of as an isolated subject. It should get used.
(Here's his thoughts for the sub-track)
While some applications can be done in math class, math should not have to carry the burden of this. Math should routinely get used in other subjects. This of course is not speaking to the curriculum as it stands.
(Notice his reference to Lynn Steen the consultant hired to write the Boeing Standard with Bellevue School District. The Standard that is still being written)
Question 3: One way would be for there to be an increased acceptance of mathematics as part of normal dialogue. In the book Mathematics Tomorrow, edited by Lynn Steen, there is an article by Neal Koblitz called "Mathematics as Propaganda." It starts with a story about someone from Zero Population Growth talking about environmental impact as being proportional to population. This was on the Johnny Carson show, I think. (Neil Koblitz, University of Washington)
(This story is becoming an internet legend, because I've seen it written and told five different times each with different interpretations)
The guy (Erhlich) wrote a linear equation, D = cP, D being damage and P being population. Koblitz's point was, writing this equation was an intimidating thing to do. My reaction was to be depressed that something so basic and simple should be perceived as intimidating by the broad public.
(Again I don't think you can interpret a 3 minute television broadcast with the broader public, but I'm not a Yale professor)
If we could reach a state where this kind of thing was an accepted and understood part of normal discourse, that would be a positive thing. But I guess that won't happen in the short term.
I think the practical short term answer is to recognize, first, that "working" will always be a relative term; one can always wish for more, and things could always be worse. Given that, the answer becomes technical: one must have standardized tests which reflect a consensus view of what needs to be known, and measure progress on these tests.
(This is the part that pertains to education and work)
There is another criterion, in terms of manpower: are the math skills offered on the market adequate to the jobs available? But this is a much more contingent criterion, reflecting much more than US education. For example, there is currently a math PhD supply glut. But these supernumerary PhDs are not US citizens.
(Here's what teachers need to do. Foremost VISION; CURRICULUM is secondary)
Question 4: I think,first, teachers need to love and understand math as a culture, and the importance of that culture to civilization, and the importance of transmitting it, which is their job.
This would include a historical perspective, so that they can convey not just the technical aspects, but why the points of view embodied in the technical points are valuable, and how they represent, as many of them do, triumphs of human thought. Of course, I would want teachers to be well-versed in mathematics itself, to the extent that they are comfortable enough with it to present it as a living thing, a set of responses to challenges, refined over the years. This involves a much deeper understanding than just being able to do the problems. Relatively subtle issues can be expected to arise on a frequent if inividually unpredictable basis, and a good teacher would be ready to discuss and clarify many of these issues. Specific pedagogical techniques can vary with the teacher and the situation, but practice, reflection on practice, and discussion with others of specific points can lead to improvement. Most learning that takes place is due to student effort. The task of the teacher is to bring mathematics to the student in learnable chunks, and to put the student in a frame of mind to master them.
Question 5: I was identified as "good at math" long before I had any idea of a career related to it. A fifth grade teacher told me I would be a mathematician, and my (private) reaction was, "You're crazy, lady." In sixth grade, I rejected a proposal to study math beyond grade level. In tenth grade, several things happened. I read a popular book about quantum mechanics. It had some mathematical symbols (line integrals) in it, and I had no idea what they meant, so I started to study on my own in order to understand them. For a long time after, through much of college, mathematical physics was a big motivation for learning math. Also in tenth grade, I took geometry, which I thought was great. Also, one of my geometry teachers was a real enthusiast, and put me on to the books Elementary Mathematics from an Advanced Standpoint by Felix Klein. They were very hard, and I didn't understand a lot in them, but they showed a completely different world from high school math.
.....
http://mathed.missouri.edu/pdfs/grspring98.pdf
ReplyDeleteMy kids are complaining about being tired and hungry. so I'll leave this to share - I haven't had time to browse it thoroughly, so I don't want to comment.
This is how textbook authors have benefited by creating textbooks that don't deliver.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.mathematicallycorrect.com/cheney2.htm
"John Dossey was chosen to be the author of one textbook and is credited as conceptualizer for another in Addison-Wesley's whole-math series. This second book, Focus on Algebra, has been dubbed Rainforest Math by Marianne Jennings, who observes that environmentalism and Third-World concerns seem to loom larger in it than equations. Thomas Romberg, the education professor who is so disapproving of the international math and science survey, is the author of Math in Context, a whole-math program recently published by the Encyclopedia Britannica Education Corporation. Romberg received $1,702,780 from the National Science Foundation to develop the Math in Context curriculum. The developers of Interactive Mathematics Program, the program that Madalyn McDaniel and Debby Arnold encountered, have received $9,059,941 in federal funds and more on top of that from the state of California."
Just so you know....
"Mathematics in Context represents a comprehensive mathematics curriculum for the middle grades consistent with the content and pedagogy suggested by the NCTM Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics, and Professional Standards for Teaching Mathematics. The development of the curriculum units reflects a collaboration between research and development teams at the Freudenthal Institute at the University of Utrecht, The Netherlands, research teams at the University of Wisconsin, and a group of middle school teachers."
I believe this could be Bellingham's strange math program or at least its roots. With Nelson at the helm for SMATE-WWU anything is possible.
I found this off the Arthur Hu website and its a fascinating connection to Seattle's troubles and Terry Bergeson.
ReplyDeleteBergeson’s Fan Club
Some time ago, I received a tip that Seattle School Board Vice President Don Nielsen bankrolled Terry Bergeson’s 1992 Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) campaign. Nielsen had reportedly planned on running for office himself, but supported Bergeson after he changed his mind.
Last night, I examined some records from the Public Disclosure Commission and learned that Don Nielsen did indeed contribute a lot of money in 1992. But that wasn’t the most interesting discovery.
During the 1996 SPI campaign, Bergeson’s Treasurer was Judith Lonnquist! (Address: Lonnquist, 1218 Third Ave., #1500, Seattle, WA 98101 (206) 622-2086) Lonnquist also made at least one donation ($1,100 on 5/22/96). Lonnquist is also listed as the Treasurer during the 1992 campaign (1523 11th Ave. W, Seattle 98119 (206) 283-1610) and made at least one donation of $500 on 3/3/92.
Judith Lonnquist is the attorney who the teachers unions hire to attack teachers, then hires herself out to teachers who are generally let down. She defended the WEA from the Evergreen Freedom Foundation in their epic battle. .............! A number of people have told me that Lonnquist is very political, one claiming that she used to be associated with George McGovern in my native South Dakota. (Sheez, I wonder if Lonnquist is from South Dakota!)
I received a second shock when I spied Joseph Olchefske’s name among Bergeson’s 1992 donors. Hmmmm…. the newspapers have been telling us that Olchefske stumbled into education when he bumped into the late John Stanford in an elevator (or on a treadmill, according to one version) a few years ago. Yet he made several donations to Terry Bergeson’s campaign way back in 1992. I also spotted the names of Barbara Peterson and Steven Brown, whom I suspect may be the two recently elected school board directors. (However, their addresses are different than the addresses listed during their school board campaign.)
http://curewashington.org/Education_Philosophy.pdf
ReplyDeleteThis is a list of personalities tied to Bergeson, I found this most interesting since I believe the new contract for the WASL with Pearson is supposed to begin in August at an increased cost of $25 million.
The answer to the ‘who’ question comprises our Hall of Shame:
Marc Tucker – The chief architect of the system at the federal level, he wrote a nine-page letter to
Hillary Clinton just after the 1992 election, outlining his plan. It later became a document called “A
Workforce Development Plan for the United States.” The infamous “Dear Hillary letter” is posted
at http://www.eagleforum.org/educate/marc_tucker/marc_tucker_letter.html. Tucker worked with
both Mrs. Clinton and Ira Magaziner in formulating the plan. He has his fingers in a half dozen
organizations that push the agenda forward in the various states. More is available about these
groups in a report by Diana Fessler of Ohio at http://www.curewashington.org/fessler.htm.
Frank Shrontz – The former Boeing CEO has led both the national and state Business Roundtables,
major proponents of Goals 2000, etc. He started up the Partnership for Learning (the propaganda
arm of the Washington Business Roundtable’s education organization). He was also a founding
member of Achieve, a self-appointed national school board composed of six CEO’s of major
companies and six governors.
13 Iowa Test of Basic Skills, a norm-referenced, standardized test, required until 2005, for some non-WASL grades. It is
computer-scored.
14 These costs are the most recent available as of May 2004.
15 These are the people who have given us whole language reading, fuzzy math, and self-discovery science, in which the
student is expected to rediscover theory (created by giants standing on the shoulders of other giants over centuries) by
himself, without a text, by doing labs off a worksheet in class.
Terry Bergeson – She is currently (2007) our Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI), and was
formerly director of the Commission on Student Learning that created Washington’s Essential
Academic Learning Requirements (EALR’s), our outcomes for Goals 2000/OBE. They are neither
essential nor academic. Under her watch, the infamous WASL was developed and implemented.
Shirley McCune – This former director of the Mid-Continent Research and Education Laboratory
(MCREL)16 is currently serving as Bergeson’s second-in-command. Her job is Education Liaison
to the federal government. She is most famous for her quote, “What is happening to America
today… what it amounts to is a total transformation of our society." uttered at a governor’s
conference in Kansas while still at MCREL. What she means by “total transformation of society”
becomes clear when you see two more quotes from her book, The Light Shall Set You Free.
(Emphasis added.)
For many, it is difficult to grasp the concept that we are more than our human form and that we
are also beings of Light. Consequently, training the mind to accept expanded concepts of who
and what we truly are can be an arduous task, requiring time, patience, and a desire to explore
areas not commonly taught in the classrooms of today. When one acquires the ability to connect
with the Light within, everything observed and experienced through the five senses in the outer
world takes on a new meaning, which releases the child within to want to relearn that which we
already know. This path requires a whole new curriculum and set of guidelines to describe our
existence.
The higher vibrations of the Fourth Dimension provide us with experiences (a new curriculum,
if you will) that require us to choose life-styles and behaviors that may be considerably different
from those which we exhibited in the past.
Chris Vance – The former Washington State GOP chairman helped to write the education
restructuring law, ESHB1209, in the 1993 session when he was a wet-behind-the-ears legislator.
He has yet to repent of his education sins.
Booth Gardner – He was governor when we accepted Goals 2000 money, appointed the Governor’s
Commission on Education Reform and Funding17, which put together the recommendations that
became ESHB1209. He also served in a leading role on the Education Commission for the States,
an organization of governors created to try to implement the agenda.
Judith Billings – She was SPI when ESHB1209 was passed, accepted Goals 2000 money, and
launched us on the Schools for the 21st Century project (a Goals 2000 pilot program that was never
fully evaluated before its provisions were implemented).
The Trojan Horse of “Choice”
It is astounding that people who are not fooled by the rhetoric of “choice” when used in the context of
abortion are completely taken in when it is applied to education. We have had true choice in education for a long time. We call our choices private schools and homeschools. That they are not governmentfunded is a good thing. When the government comes offering money, it always expects something in return – compliance. “He who pays the piper calls the tune,” as they say.
Charter schools have not shown themselves to perform any better than regular public schools for the
decade plus they have existed. Some succeed. Many more fail. Fraud has not been unusual. As public schools, they must follow whatever laws the legislature chooses to impose on them.