The manner in which Minooka CCSD 201 rolled out the new Go Math "pilot" program could be easily labeled "how not to roll out a change in curriculum." First, the pilot program was first mentioned to the school board in May of last year (the end of the last school year). The rush to implement the Go Math pilot was due to the anticipated arrival of the new PARCC test in 2014 (see here for more information). This, of course, meant that parents were given no warning that the math curriculum in many of the classrooms would be different from what they were expecting it to be. It also meant that teachers were given no advance training prior to the start of the new school year. Okay, maybe they had one or two days of teacher institute days to get up to speed. As a result, teachers were learning how to teach the new curriculum at the same time that they were expected to be teaching students. Second, only after it became clear that there were issues with the new curriculum did the district send out a letter to parents notifying them of "Parent Curriculum Information Meetings" to inform them about the new curriculum. The schedule of meetings, by the way, is as follows:
October 2nd - Aux Sable Elementary School 5:30-7:00PM (already held)
November 13th - Minooka Intermediate School 9:00-10:30AM
December 4th - Walnut Trails Elementary School 9:00-10:30AM
January 15th - Minooka Junior High School 5:30-7:00PM
February 6th - Jones Elementary School 5:30-7:00PM
March 19th - Minooka Elementary School 9:00-10:30AM
You are free to go to any of these curriculum meetings. You do not have to wait until a meeting is held at your child's school.
Now if you are a parent and decide to go to one of these meetings be prepared to hear the following (or something like it):
1. "There were similar outcries from parents and teachers when Saxon Math was adopted a decade ago." This may be true. I don't know, since I wasn't there. But that doesn't mean that the current complaints are any less valid. Each curriculum should be judged on its own merits.
2. "Go Math is research-based." This one I love. You hear the term "research-based" thrown around quite often when you talk to school administrators. Very rarely, if ever, do they back up that statement by citing any research. The statement insinuates, of course, that Saxon Math (or the alternative to whatever it is that they are promoting at the time) is not "research-based." So, what should be the relevant decision criteria when choosing a math curriculum? Whether it is supposedly "research-based" or whether it has a proven track record of inculcating a thorough understanding of mathematics and teaching children efficient methods of solving mathematical problems?
3. The high ISAT scores that Minooka CCSD 201 students achieved during the years of being taught with Saxon Math were "phantom scores" or "inflated scores." It is funny that this was never mentioned before. So, either this is true and the administration has been touting "phony" scores all these years, or this is false and is a less than honest shot at Saxon Math. Either way, it is problematic. So, in the future when the administration touts the scores that students achieve on standardized tests (or any test for that matter), we will have to wonder if the scores mean anything or will we be told at some future date that they were "phantom" scores all along.
Now, I am not at all under the misconception that Saxon Math is perfect (no curriculum is). What I have an issue with is choosing a mathematics curriculum because of a new standardized test (rather than the quality of the math education that it provides) and rolling it out without proper preparation.
Showing posts with label national curriculum. Show all posts
Showing posts with label national curriculum. Show all posts
Monday, October 21, 2013
Friday, September 27, 2013
The First Casualty of the Common Core: Math
Perhaps you have heard that Minooka 201 is piloting a new math curriculum in elementary school. The name of the new curriculum is Go Math. The curriculum that Minooka 201 had been using exclusively in the elementary grades up to this year was Saxon Math. Now, some classes are using Go Math and the other classes are using Saxon Math.
Why the change? Was Saxon Math not a good curriculum? Were the children not doing well in math? Actually, the children were doing very well in math. I am not one to base my decisions on standardized test scores, but math is one subject where test scores are useful since mathematics deals with objectively right or wrong answers. Based on the test scores, Minooka elementary students were performing very well. Our scores in math were consistently in the high 80s and 90s.
No, the reason for the change was the new Common Core State Standards. Go Math, the administration was told, was aligned with the Common Core. Saxon Math was "not quite aligned." Therefore, Saxon Math would have to go. Never mind that students were seemingly doing very well in math. Never mind that Saxon Math actually utilizes a "spiraling" methodology where skills are built up step by step and previously introduced skills are constantly reviewed.
So how is the pilot of Go Math going? Well, from purely anecdotal evidence, it is a slow motion car wreck. And, perhaps, that is no accident, since the only mathmetician on the validating committee for the Common Core State Standards, Professor James Milgram of Stanford University, refused to sign-off on the math standards of the Common Core and has since publicly opposed implementation of the standards (see here, and here). In addition, the District administration rushed into their decision to pilot Go Math at the end of the last school year without adequate preparation or training for the teachers, thus compounding the problems.
If your children were doing well in math, perhaps even enjoying math, and are now doing poorly in math, perhaps even hating math, it may be due to the Go Math pilot and the new Common Core State Standards. And, if you are of a mind to complain about the Go Math pilot and/or the way in which it was implemented, approaching your child's teacher is of limited value since the teachers have no authority to change curriculum. Any complaints should be directed to the Assistant Superintendent (for curriculum), the Superintendent and/or the school board.
Why the change? Was Saxon Math not a good curriculum? Were the children not doing well in math? Actually, the children were doing very well in math. I am not one to base my decisions on standardized test scores, but math is one subject where test scores are useful since mathematics deals with objectively right or wrong answers. Based on the test scores, Minooka elementary students were performing very well. Our scores in math were consistently in the high 80s and 90s.
No, the reason for the change was the new Common Core State Standards. Go Math, the administration was told, was aligned with the Common Core. Saxon Math was "not quite aligned." Therefore, Saxon Math would have to go. Never mind that students were seemingly doing very well in math. Never mind that Saxon Math actually utilizes a "spiraling" methodology where skills are built up step by step and previously introduced skills are constantly reviewed.
So how is the pilot of Go Math going? Well, from purely anecdotal evidence, it is a slow motion car wreck. And, perhaps, that is no accident, since the only mathmetician on the validating committee for the Common Core State Standards, Professor James Milgram of Stanford University, refused to sign-off on the math standards of the Common Core and has since publicly opposed implementation of the standards (see here, and here). In addition, the District administration rushed into their decision to pilot Go Math at the end of the last school year without adequate preparation or training for the teachers, thus compounding the problems.
If your children were doing well in math, perhaps even enjoying math, and are now doing poorly in math, perhaps even hating math, it may be due to the Go Math pilot and the new Common Core State Standards. And, if you are of a mind to complain about the Go Math pilot and/or the way in which it was implemented, approaching your child's teacher is of limited value since the teachers have no authority to change curriculum. Any complaints should be directed to the Assistant Superintendent (for curriculum), the Superintendent and/or the school board.
Thursday, September 26, 2013
Common Core Standards: Fact vs. Myth (vs. Propaganda) . . . Part III
I thought I would share a recent article by another critic of the Common Core State Standards. The article is entitled "The Biggest Fallacy of the Common Core Standards."
Thursday, September 12, 2013
Common Core Standards: Fact vs. Myth (vs. Propaganda) . . . Part II
In a previous post (see here), I talked about the Common Core State Standards and the propaganda machine at the Illinois State Board of Education. Well, it seems that the propaganda machine has shifted into high gear as schools throughout Illinois begin to implement the new curriculum. They have come up with approved information releases and even suggested "tweets" for administrators and teachers to send out to parents and others in order to influence them into accepting the new curriculum (see here, here, here, here, and here).
Let's examine just one of the elements of propaganda in this post. One oft repeated element of propaganda regarding the Common Core is that it is not a national curriculum and is not being imposed upon the states by the federal government. There are two parts to this. First, there is the issue of a national curriculum. It is very difficult to argue that the Common Core does not represent a national curriculum. Now it is true that not all of the states have signed on to implement the Common Core (forty-four states and the District of Columbia have signed on to implement the Common Core), but it might as well be the entire nation. Second, there is the issue of Common Core being imposed by the federal government. No, there is no federal law requiring the states to implement the Common Core. The federal government has, however, tied the grant of certain education dollars to the implementation of the Common Core (including the testing and data gathering that goes with it). So, rather than using a stick, the federal government is using a carrot, in much the same way that the federal government in the 1980s used the carrot of withholding highway funding unless the states increased their drinking ages to 21. And, guess what . . . all the states raised their drinking ages to 21 since they could not maintain the highways without federal money. Likewise, it is easy to see why the vast majority of states signed on to implement the Common Core.
Why is this an issue? Why does the Illinois State Board of Education (and others) so often stress that this is not a national curriculum imposed by the federal government? Well, perhaps it is because a national curriculum would violate current federal law (see this report). Or, perhaps it is because parents and others are justifiably wary of a national curriculum imposed by the federal government.
Our children are much more likely to need to be continuous learners than previous generations. The pace of technological change and innovation has increased throughout the twentieth century and into the twenty-first century. A rigid, top-down model (whether imposed by a consortium of states or the federal government) is exactly what is NOT needed in the face of this type of world (if indeed it was ever needed). A flexible, bottom-up model (where freedom and innovation are valued and each child is treated as an individual rather than a widget) is what is needed. The Common Core State Standards will shackle the vast majority of primary and secondary students in the United States to a rigid set of standards which are bound to fail to provide a quality education. And, when it begins to become clear to a great many people that the Common Core State Standards are failing our children, it will take a great deal of time and political will to remove them due to their being imposed on a statewide and almost national basis.
Let's examine just one of the elements of propaganda in this post. One oft repeated element of propaganda regarding the Common Core is that it is not a national curriculum and is not being imposed upon the states by the federal government. There are two parts to this. First, there is the issue of a national curriculum. It is very difficult to argue that the Common Core does not represent a national curriculum. Now it is true that not all of the states have signed on to implement the Common Core (forty-four states and the District of Columbia have signed on to implement the Common Core), but it might as well be the entire nation. Second, there is the issue of Common Core being imposed by the federal government. No, there is no federal law requiring the states to implement the Common Core. The federal government has, however, tied the grant of certain education dollars to the implementation of the Common Core (including the testing and data gathering that goes with it). So, rather than using a stick, the federal government is using a carrot, in much the same way that the federal government in the 1980s used the carrot of withholding highway funding unless the states increased their drinking ages to 21. And, guess what . . . all the states raised their drinking ages to 21 since they could not maintain the highways without federal money. Likewise, it is easy to see why the vast majority of states signed on to implement the Common Core.
Why is this an issue? Why does the Illinois State Board of Education (and others) so often stress that this is not a national curriculum imposed by the federal government? Well, perhaps it is because a national curriculum would violate current federal law (see this report). Or, perhaps it is because parents and others are justifiably wary of a national curriculum imposed by the federal government.
Our children are much more likely to need to be continuous learners than previous generations. The pace of technological change and innovation has increased throughout the twentieth century and into the twenty-first century. A rigid, top-down model (whether imposed by a consortium of states or the federal government) is exactly what is NOT needed in the face of this type of world (if indeed it was ever needed). A flexible, bottom-up model (where freedom and innovation are valued and each child is treated as an individual rather than a widget) is what is needed. The Common Core State Standards will shackle the vast majority of primary and secondary students in the United States to a rigid set of standards which are bound to fail to provide a quality education. And, when it begins to become clear to a great many people that the Common Core State Standards are failing our children, it will take a great deal of time and political will to remove them due to their being imposed on a statewide and almost national basis.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)