Smart Teachers in Stupid Schools

Smart Teachers in Stupid Schools
By Christine D'Amico, MA Elementary Ed

I'm sitting in yet another meeting for staff development on the common core curriculum. This meeting is for Special Ed Teachers, the Special Ed supervisor for the district is talking about "hotspots" – "And one of the "hotspots" as you know, is that our students must tell us where they are academically and how they intend to move to the next level." I raised my eyebrows and made a face in her direction. "What?" she questioned, "We're all professionals here, and do you have something to add?" "Not really" I replied, "No, I insist, you obviously have something on your mind and we'd like to hear it." "Look" I stated firmly, "I don't know many adults who can tell you where they are academically and how they expect to get to the next level, no less children, no less special needs children! Now, the kids can tell you what they like to do and what they don't like to do, but to ask them to present their academic portfolio on the spot is simply not appropriate. The professionals in the classroom must discern and administer efficient methodologies to teach the kids and get them to the next levels; this should not be a concern of the students." We're seated in a big square table; the other teachers are all within my sight. As I look around seeking support, most remain mute not daring to question the status quo, only one strong dynamic teacher nods her head feverishly in agreement and asserts "Exactly!" "Well," maintains the supervisor, "This is what is coming down the pipe all our kids have to be 'proactive learners'." "Yes, well," I quipped, "it's simply not appropriate." "'Proactive learners'" I rolled my eyes thinking, "These people love to use phrases that have snappy ideals with little meaning in the classroom."

The conversation went on to other "hotspots" which made no reference to real scientifically based practices in the classroom, the pressures from above to conform to these requirements are thus thrust upon classroom teachers. Yet another meeting with lots of form and little function while newer teachers do not dare question authority for fear of reprisal and senior teachers object behind the backs of these supervisors - tired of ridiculous meetings promising lots of something delivering nothing. Thus the "Much Ado About Nothing" merry-go-round of pedagogy rolls on.

So how did we get here in our schools and what happens to teachers who really are innovative and question the status quo? First a little history of American Education - American education in the early 1900's was designed to teach students academics: phonics, reading, writing, math, American history, world history, world geography, American geography, science, grammar, art, art history, literature, poetry, students were taught directly and systematically and they were assigned memorization and recitation of important documents. Students in the early 1900's had a course load that was full and diverse. High school graduates during this time had a broad education which was well grounded in academics. There was no illiteracy problem because these students were taught to read phonetically. Their knowledge base was probably better than most college graduates today. Then, along came John Dewey, who said that schools needed to be more sensitive and progressive. "Schools should be places where we can build a new political order, teaching students to think critically and be open minded." This is progressive education. A new era emerged for education.

Teachers were then encouraged to forego academics and put more of a thrust on progressive paradigms such as working cooperatively and learning by exploration rather than rote. A new emphasis on bolstering self-esteem by changing the grading system emerged. New teaching models came into the classroom, out went the memorization of facts and phonics, in came a new pedagogy that was implicitly based called "Constructivism" - "We learn through exploration and we learn to read in the same way we learn to speak." This became the mantra of pedagogues. Group learning, group seating, grading with rubrics, collaboration, open classrooms, schools without walls, cooperative learning, multiage approaches, whole language, the social curriculum, experiential education, and numerous forms of alternative schools all have important philosophical roots in progressive education.

Though the progressive educators end goal for students has always been critical thinking and a highly educated diverse population, their methodologies lack rigor and scientific backing. Without phonics directly and systematically taught in our classrooms, illiteracy soared. First came the "Look-Say" method (remember Dick and Jane?) later came whole language, which outlawed phonics in any way, shape or form in the classroom. Illiteracy rates skyrocketed and though there has been some pushback from parents and educators, these trends remain in place. We are now down to basically teaching three subjects in school, reading, writing and math. The methods employed in the classroom are so inefficient that we have to spend lots of time on these disciplines. What could be taught efficiently in Kindergarten and First Grade is drawn out for years. We can't fit in other disciplines because our students can't handle the rigor. If you can't read, write and spell, you simply can't handle lots of other subjects.

In contrast, students who were educated in the early 1900's with traditional classrooms had many subjects and were able to handle a full course load. These graduates had more knowledge and were therefore better critical thinkers than those who are now subjected to progressive education. In fact, progressive pedagogy produces the exact opposite of its goal and in the face of science, which backs direct, systematic, rigorous instruction progressive educators remain married to their paradigms. Our schools are infiltrated and infected with this disease called progressive education, when in fact there is nothing progressive about it! The progressive model is backwards, it is not helping our students really acquire the knowledge they need to become strong, smart citizens and is forcing the entire system to crumble.

Progressive educators in universities (like Columbia Teachers College) sit around thinking up ways to create curriculum which orbits around their paradigms. College professors follow the curriculum without question; therefore new teachers are indoctrinated in these methods. These methods grab hold of schools and school districts like parasites and because we only have a precious few hours in school with our children, much of these time-wasting, inappropriate pedagogical approaches result in lower academic achievement in our students. These people experiment on our students and teachers with their poorly written curriculum. Many teachers who are under strict orders to use these time-wasting procedures are distraught that they cannot use scientifically based pedagogy in their classrooms.

Progressive educators would like to promote a more democratic society advocating greater equity, justice, diversity and other democratic values, yet their methodologies do just the opposite, with "Fuzzy Math" and "Whole Language" causing lesser privileged students who can't afford tutoring to fall way behind. NYC has 70% of its student population in this category. Imagine how devastating to the morale and sense of self-esteem the use of poor curriculums can have on a child's psyche. These students subjected to these methods grow to believe they can't do anything; they are labeled as special needs children and become distraught that they are not mentally capable of becoming educated. Many are just pushed through the system because there is no where else for them to go. Progressivism which is trying to enforce some kind of social agenda, rather than purely impart knowledge, is causing many students to fail and teachers to become distraught and despondent.

What do teachers who refuse to follow the leader do? Many shut their doors and pull out the curriculum they know works. I know of teachers who, when whole language is being implemented by the district, will use their phonics programs undercover. Teachers will set up look-outs in the hall to see if supervisors are coming and drill students in what to do should a supervisor show up. I have had my students open their "readers" and put in the phonics books I'm using inside. "If someone comes you take the book slide it in your desk and pretend you're reading." I've instructed.

In NYC, the high school teachers in one district staged a protest at the district office against the use of the Teachers College method in their classrooms. These teachers were told to conform to the method or else be punished. The UFT chapter leader who headed up this protest ended up in the Rubber Room with charges of insubordination. He was despondent, demoralized and depressed; worried that his very career would be ended. This brave leader persevered and was restored to his position in school with the charges dropped. The high school teachers won their battle and were told they could use their own methods in their classrooms.

One time during a summer school program, I brought my own personal reading kit (worth $2000) up four flights to my New York City classroom and bought all the kids their own workbooks at a cost of over $250. I did this because the summer school materials were so poorly written and so benign I knew they would not make a dent in the minds of these students who were already anywhere from two to five years behind in reading. In fact, the summer school materials were junk magazines created by some publisher who had a contract with the district. When the summer school district superintendent and principal came into my classroom to observe my students obviously using a multi-sensory method, singing phonics songs, spelling in groups, reading in groups and writing I was questioned, "Why aren't you using the mandated program?" "I would challenge you to think about your choice of curriculum for these students, these kids need a powerful program to get them up and running. I have always gotten high test scores with this program." Later behind closed doors, the principal sternly rebuked, "How dare you confront the superintendent in front of me!" And so it goes, smart teachers with smart innovative programs that actually are proven to work "get it". I was punished severely by that principal for speaking out, who wrote me up and even removed me from the classroom. Yet, my students outscored their peers that summer.

Another teacher who had gotten high test scores repeatedly using her method of spelling and vocabulary enhancement in her classroom was told not use her method as "spelling has nothing to do with reading." (which is a flat out lie)? So, she used the methods enforced by the district. When she was called into her supervisor who was questioning her test scores she said, "Well, I used your methods, I did exactly what you told me to do, so you can turn around and look in the mirror because that's the person who caused these low test scores." After that, she decided to leave the classroom and become a cluster teacher because, "There's just too much pressure on classroom teachers to do the wrong thing." Sometimes smart teachers can't take it anymore and just abandon ship.
In math, if the district brings in a fuzzy program, smart teachers buy their own books, use the programs they know work and close their doors. They speak out against the ridiculous choices made by the district and refuse to use their programs. Some teachers are disciplined for not following the requirements while others can get away with creating their own programs. I don't use the mandated math program in our school; it's the most confusing program I've ever seen. I look at the Core Knowledge requirements and follow it, creating a program for my Special Needs kids. After all, if the math program doesn't make sense to me, it won't make sense to First Graders! Common sense, please!

So, what is a really smart teacher? Smart teachers want to teach using scientifically sound curriculums that work and never fail, even the slowest learners. They want to use what we know about the brain and learning in their classroom curriculum. (Did you know that teachers are never taught brain science in their education training courses? Imagine and these are the people who are working with the brain all day long!) Innovative teachers want to access the entire brain using multisensory curriculums. These teachers want to empower their students with as much knowledge as possible. They look at the whole student, their home life, their diet, their support systems and they have compassion and love in their hearts for each one. Smart teachers encourage and expect the absolute best, yet they make things easy by using direct, systematic, explicit curriculum which clearly lays out expectations and produces measurable results. Smart educators want to learn about what works, these are teachers who will pay their way to conferences which enhance their own teaching so they can impart knowledge in the best most efficient manner in our schools. These are the teachers who will go the extra mile again and again to help their students succeed.
Too often people, especially within institutions, dig their heals in deep into their own paradigms whether correct or not, in order to protect their territory, their status quo, their own need to be right. In education and our schools this is a most egregious offense because, at stake, are the futures and lives of the children we serve. We can no longer afford to remain stoic in our mindsets, and although cloaked with lofty goals, the progressive educational movement in the United States has created a pedagogical mess, which must be untangled and common sense must prevail.

Smart teachers, who are bold and use common sense, must take a stand, and speak out against the common trends in academia to waste time and dumb down our classrooms. We want to produce bright students who have much knowledge and can think critically. You can't put the cart before the horse; the ability to think critically only comes with much knowledge and understanding of many disciplines. Smart teachers in stupid schools still produce well-educated students; we just wish the schools would get on board!

Long-term future of Everyday Math under tight scrutiny

Irksome math program could face changes (EDM Anchorage)

COMEAU: Support for program shifted after critical report.

By ROSEMARY SHINOHARA
rshinohara@adn.com

Published: August 20th, 2011 12:00 AM
Last Modified: August 20th, 2011 12:40 AM

Superintendent Carol Comeau said Friday she is more open to the idea of replacing the controversial Everyday Mathematics program in elementary schools after a critical consultants' report and the discussions that followed.

The report, produced in June by a team from the Council of the Great City Schools, found fault with the district's implementation of Everyday Math.

The program emphasizes the concepts behind math and the different ways of figuring out a problem.

The report said the district had not conducted enough training so that teachers, principals and parents could understand the reasoning behind the program.

The School Board put $425,000 into this school year's budget to allow the district to begin addressing the problems.

On Monday, administrators will present to the board a draft plan for how they hope to improve math teaching this year and beyond. It is mostly centered on increased and better training for teachers.

The meeting starts at 6:30 p.m. at district headquarters at 5530 E. Northern Lights Blvd.

Everyday Math is controversial around the country, Comeau said.

Many parents say they don't get it, and in Anchorage most teachers surveyed last year gave it fair to poor ratings.

Comeau said she's not sure yet whether she'll recommend keeping it after this year.

The vocabulary of Everyday Math is hard for students who are still learning English to grasp, and many of those students struggle with it, she said.

Yet a high mobility rate among schools argues for keeping the same program in all schools so students aren't lost when they move within the city, she said.

There would be new annual costs to support teaching Everyday Math the way the Great City Schools report recommends but also costs to convert to a new program that might be easier to teach over the long run, she said.

"I am truly open to any direction," Comeau said. Her position has shifted as a result of the consultants' report and subsequent discussions, she said.

Some School Board members say they're waiting to get more information on what to do about the math program.

"There's a lot of concern about it but a huge expense in dumping it and starting over," said board member Don Smith.


"I really want to hear the hard information," said board member Pat Higgins.

"Ultimately we have to train kids for a new world, a much more complex world. Simple math will not do it," Higgins said.

There's no scheduled vote on math at Monday's board meeting, but people can testify about the draft plan, said board president Gretchen Guess.

She said if the board wants to debate the question of keeping the program, then she would recommend holding a public hearing on the question at a later date.

"I don't want to go back to just doing math," Guess said. "You also have to think about math."

The recommendations to improve the program this year include expanding the number of districtwide math coaches available to help teachers, giving lead math teachers at different schools extra money to take on additional duties training other teachers, and holding public meetings to hear from parents, Comeau said.

One goal will be to offer "just-in-time" training for teachers -- a lesson on how to teach an upcoming section of Everyday Math, she said.

A powerful way to make a difference, she said, is to do what school systems in Singapore and Japan do: get substitutes for teachers scheduled for training, have them observe a master teacher giving a math class, then talk about it with each other and make plans for their own classes.

The school district asked for Great City Schools to evaluate the district's math program because elementary math test results have stayed at about the national average. The district wants to rise about the average.

36 Comments

Read more: http://www.adn.com/2011/08/19/2022891/comeau-open-to-changing-controversial.html#ixzz1VZfdh6Zo

Back to basics

As an attorney and employer for 27 years, I could not understand why job applicants did not know basic math or English. I recently learned that public schools stopped teaching certain arithmetic skills to mastery, including long division, fractions and the number line. Instead, children are taught reform math (also known as “fuzzy math” or “new math”) via a “discovery” method.

Advocates of reform math say that memorizing the times tables is “drill and kill” and that knowing standard procedures is obsolete. They say all children should have calculators and don’t need to know that 7 x 7 = 49.

Of course, if one enters the wrong numbers on the calculator, the answer is incorrect. Students can no longer estimate the correct answer. In math class, children are put into groups to discuss math problems and reach agreement. The smartest student provides the answer. In my day, this was called cheating; today it’s called collaboration.

The Spokane school board has long supported this approach. Sally Fullmer is running to serve on the Spokane school board. She knows that teaching the basics to mastery is essential, and I urge the public to vote for her in the upcoming school board election.

Cheryl Mitchell
Spokane

Children face low bar on math, reading exams (Most fall short of US benchmarks, except in Mass)

By John Hechinger
Bloomberg News / August 11, 2011

WASHINGTON - Almost all states give children math and reading proficiency exams using standards that fall short of federal benchmarks, even after eight raised their requirements since 2007, a US Department of Education study found.
Indiana, Oklahoma, West Virginia, and five other states raised their standards on at least one test of reading or math in fourth or eighth grades between 2007 and 2009, according to a report released yesterday. South Carolina lowered the bar on all exams.

The study comes after US Education Secretary Arne Duncan expressed concern that states dumb down annual proficiency tests so they can qualify for federal money under the nation’s main public education law. The No Child Left Behind law requires that all students be proficient in math and reading by 2014, leaving each state free to define that measure. Duncan plans to let states ignore the deadline if they agree to raise academic standards and take other steps, he said Aug. 5.
“States need to aim higher for all students,’’ said Michael Cohen, president of Achieve Inc., a Washington-based nonprofit created by governors and business leaders to raise academic standards.

No Child Left Behind’s proficiency requirements create “significant obstacles’’ to instituting rigorous academic standards, Cohen, a former assistant secretary of education under President Bill Clinton, said in a telephone interview.
The report comes as Duncan has already prodded 43 states and the District of Columbia since last year to sign onto US academic standards proposed by the nation’s governors and school chiefs.

The study, which examined a period before that effort gained steam, compared data from 2008-09 state assessments with the 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress, often called “the nation’s report card.’’The Education Department report showed how a proficiency score on a state test would translate into a score on the federal exam, which is scored on a zero to 500-point scale.

Only Massachusetts, which generally had the toughest proficiency requirements, mandated a score that would be considered proficient on most of the US tests in the study.

A Massachusetts child in eighth-grade math would be considered proficient with a state score equivalent to 300 on the federal exam. A child in Tennessee, which had the lowest standards, would need only 229, according to the report.

That means a Tennessee child could be considered proficient without knowing how to read a graph, while a Massachusetts student meeting that benchmark would likely be able to solve a math problem using algebra and geometry.

Starting in 1993, Massachusetts revamped its assessments and curriculum to make them tougher, and, as a result, state students excel on national and international academic assessments, said Mitchell Chester, the state’s commissioner of elementary and secondary education.

“People don’t rise to low expectations,’’ Chester said in a telephone interview.
South Carolina had among the highest standards in 2007. The state made the test easier to pass in 2008 because of concern so many schools were being labeled as failing under No Child Left Behind, said Jay Ragley, a spokesman for the South Carolina Department of Education.

Wasting time and money: Math program doesn't add up

Our standing in the world teaching our children the basics of mathematics and the sciences is not very good. The last time I noticed an article on this topic we were somewhere in or around 25th in successfully teaching them these two important topics.

The standings are somewhat misleading since the way each country measures its ability to teach these subjects is different, but one thing is certain — we are having a serious problem successfully teaching these important subjects.


There are three primary possibilities to explain this dismal fact. We can blame our teachers for not being qualified to teach these subjects, or we can blame our students for not being as capable as other students in developed countries, or we can look at how these topics are introduced and taught to our students.

I have been volunteering in our public schools, primarily in fourth-, fifth-, and sixth-grade mathematics classes for the past five years and without exception I can state that our teachers are very well qualified to teach mathematics. They are not the problem. Again, from personal experience I can state our students are the equal of anywhere else in the world. They are not the problem.

Having eliminated the teachers and the students as the cause of our poor standing there is just one conclusion left to explain why we are where we are and that is the material that is used to teach our students. The one we use in Bensalem in K-6 is the Everyday Mathematics program. It is widely acclaimed and used throughout the United States. It is therefore the one constant to explain our rating.

The publishers disagree with me. As written on their website: “Everyday Mathematics has been the subject of numerous studies, and the data is overwhelmingly positive, and it received the highest rating of any published curriculum reviewed by the Department of Education’s What Works Clearinghouse.”

The website boasts that the data is overwhelmingly positive while the actual results throughout the United States, as indicated by worldwide ratings, are anything but overwhelmingly positive. Bragging that the results are “positive” when we are 25th are mutually exclusive conclusions.

The program has fatal flaws because it does not stress the basics that are needed to progress to higher levels of mathematics. It uses something called “the spiral method” where mathematical topics are touched upon briefly over and over with the assumption that if students don’t understand a topic on their first exposure to it, it is not troubling because the topic will be seen again at a later date so they’ll have another opportunity to grasp it.

What the program calls a “spiral method” I call a chaotic method and the result of the chaotic method is that many students in the sixth grade are still unsure of simple multiplication and therefore struggle mightily with division. If their calculators were taken away from them, too many of them would be close to helpless.

Relying on calculators instead of knowledge is a monumental mistake and goes a long way in explaining why our worldwide standing is so low. Bluntly stated, there is no substitute for mastering the basics.

Everyday Mathematics is also terribly expensive to maintain. Instead of buying text books for each student that might last for four or five years, every year each student gets two math journals and one student reference book. In addition, the journals, on too many pages, do not give the student space to work out the problems.

There is space only for answers and that in itself is a fatal flaw. The teacher needs to see how a student arrived at an answer, not just the numbers in the answer.

This system commits us to an annual cost and waste of hundreds of thousands of dollars. Ben Franklin wrote: “A penny saved is a penny earned,” and we need to stop wasting pennies. With our school taxes going up again this year, it is time to eliminate waste. At a budget meeting of the Bensalem school board I begged them to stop using this program. It is time to discontinue its use and get back to basics