Serve the Kids—The Opportunity for Improved Education Performance

The Problems with Colorado Education

Achievement is abysmal when compared to national and especially, international standards.

1. The Proficiency Illusion (2007), Colorado NCLB cut scores are on average the lowest for both reading and math among the 26 states studied. They give examples comparing cut score defining questions using Colorado as the trivial end of the scale with Massachusetts at the high end.

2. Assessing the Role of K-12 Academic Standards in States: Workshop Summary, Nat’l Academies Press (2007). Uses the Nat’l Assessment of Educational Progress testing to compare all states. Again Colorado is in the lowest group of states.

3. The SARs (School Accountability Reports) published by the Colorado Department of Education are “graded on the curve” affairs within Colorado. Thus, they do not highlight the big gap in what our kids are being provided and what the best global competition is receiving.

4. The Colorado Closing the Achievement Gap Commission Final Report (2005), “Over a third of a century ago, Robert Kennedy called the achievement gap between minority and disadvantaged kids a stain on our national honor. In the meantime we have spent billions on finding a solution but the problem is demonstrably worse now than when RFK made his observation. “

5. The rates of improvement among Colorado schools are glacial at best which means since our competitor nations are continually improving faster that our kids are falling further and further behind.

How could this happen with all of the resources we throw at education? What do objective experts have to say?

1. E.D. Hirsch Jr. U of Virginia emeritus professor, decades long education researcher, author of excellent books on our education status and problems, stimulus for the “Massachusetts Miracle.”

The Knowledge Deficit (2006), He calls the current situation a “perfect storm” of Bad Educational Ideas. “The reason for this state of affairs – tragic for millions of students as well as for the nation – is that an army of American educators and reading experts are fundamentally wrong in their ideas about education and especially about reading comprehension. Their well-intentioned yet mistaken views are the significant reason (more than other constantly blamed factors, even poverty) that many of our children are not attaining reading proficiency, thus crippling their later schooling.”

The dominant ideas in American education are virtually unchallenged within the educational community. American education expertise (which is not the same as educational expertise in nations that perform better than we do) has a monolithic character in which dissent is stifled.

Principles that constitute a kind of theology are drilled into prospective teachers like a catechism. The only way to improve scores in reading comprehension and to narrow the reading gap between groups is to systematically provide children with the wide-ranging, specific background knowledge they need to comprehend what they read.”

Massachusetts got rid of the harmful and never effective “how-to” based approach (the Hirsch stimulated Massachusetts Miracle) replacing it with a content rich approach and saw their achievement scores soar. Of course, in Massachusetts the educators didn’t lead the charge, it was required by the legislature whose leadership mustered the courage to oppose the unions and other education power groups.

Conclusion: the curricula favored by the education schools and that our educators are taught to believe in don’t work. They don’t stand scientific scrutiny. Thus, until the educators are forced to use curricula that work no major improvement can take place. All of the effort and expense of trying to “improve” the scientifically proven to not work current methods and curricula are a waste of valuable resources and kids’ futures.

2. Norm Augustine, former CEO of Lockheed Martin, member of National Academies. Is America Falling off the Flat Earth?
It seems that the longer our children are exposed to our K-12 education system, the worse they do. If we wish to be average by global standards, we will need to improve a great deal. Can anyone imagine a football coach at any American high school greeting his players on the first day of fall practice by saying, “This year let’s get out there and try to be average for the Gipper!”?

It can, of course, be argued that comparing averages and medians tells only part of the story, as indeed is often the case. But in this instance, further parsing of the data generally reveals that the United States has a disproportionately small share of the highest performers and a disproportionately large share of the lowest performers. Although this is widely overlooked, it is not simply the poorer-performing students who are falling through the gaping cracks of our educational system but also the highest performers who—much to the nation’s detriment—are frequently being forced to learn in an environment approaching the lowest common denominator.

The problem of low expectations has not been confined to California. Alabama, for example, reported that in 2005, 83% of its fourth-graders ranked as “proficient” on its state test of academic achievement. But in the most widely accepted national test, the National Assessment of Educational Progress, only 22% of Alabama’s fourth-graders scored at or above the proficient level. In truth, neither of the measures matters much. What counts today is how the children of Alabama rank with the children of Singapore, Moscow, Hong Kong, Delhi, Beijing, and Berlin. There is little consolation in being first among losers.

3. David Klein’s A Brief History of American K-12 Mathematics Education in the 20th Century

The Progressive Education Catechism: Klein relates how the progressives (John Dewey, et al) took control of the education schools in the 1930s. Their view was and is that subjects should be taught to students based on their direct practical value, or if students independently wanted to learn those subjects. This point of view toward education comported well with the pedagogical methods endorsed by progressive education. Limiting education primarily to utilitarian skills sharply limited academic content, and this helped to justify the slow pace of student centered, discovery learning, the centerpiece of progressivism.

Notice the “slow pace” comment. It is as if we are using a 1903 Oldsmobile in the global education race when our best global opponents are using modern and reliable, up-to-date autos. Until we change to what works, not what we were taught works and doesn’t, our kids will continue to be harmed.

Thus, the constructivist, how-to approaches are slower than the content rich approaches. Because of that they simply can’t get the job done compared to our global competitors who use the methods that stand scientific scrutiny and work much better. Also, comprehension is very dependent on background knowledge. The progressive approach does not provide knowledge [content rigor] and hence understanding of what is being taught.

The Progressive’s approach is particularly harmful to “gap” students.

Let’s look at a local example. I use District 11, not because it is the worst case but because it is the largest local district and representative of the situation. While reading achievement is unsatisfactory, math is really, really unsatisfactory. Looking at the progression of data across the grades you see that the split between 3rd grade proficient or better versus below proficient (73, 27) becomes in 10th grade (32, 68).

Initial conclusions from the data

The math teaching process in D11 is performing at an unacceptable level. It transforms the mostly proficient 3rd graders into mostly unproficient 10th graders over time. A good process would start well and end better.

The results shows that students are advancing each year in math skill much less than the very weak Colorado standards increase.
Every large district in Colorado has charts that have the same shape. They just shift up and down with the “demographic luck of the draw” for their student population.

Why does it matter? The American Institutes for Research (2007) reported on a study they had done comparing the NAEP to TIMSS (The International Math and Science Study). The results showed that the US 8th grade math students scored 27% proficient or better while Singapore math students scored 73% proficient or better. 17 nations scored better than the US, including Hungary, Slovak Rep. Slovenia, Canada, Russia, Malaysia, etc. China and India who have strong math teaching records weren’t in the testing but would have scored ahead of us almost certainly.

D11 Grade 10 CSAP Disaggregated Math, Prof or Better

Looking at the last 5 years of disaggregated data for tenth grade students shows no improvement in reducing the gap between white students and either black or Hispanic students. The NCLB requirement is that all students will score proficient or better by 2014. That would take a miracle with today’s starting point. The district is mired in “polishing the rotten apple” of their current math teaching process when it can never provide the required results. When pressured they hire expensive “outside” education consultants to assess their math process and curriculum. This is guaranteed to reinforce the current underpinnings that are so tragically inadequate because the outside consultants have the same brainwashed views that the district personnel do. This is a waste of time and money if you want to help the kids do better. Of course, the motivation is to preserve the status quo not to help the kids or to perform better.

As in any process the quality of the “final product” is the real measure of success or failure. That is, how perfect is the finished TV or car? In education, “What is the diploma worth?” “Don’t worry, the math feature doesn’t work too well but they can read, sort of.” In math education we measure results in the third through tenth grades and each grade level result must be considered in the context of how it contributes or detracts from the final result (10th grade in this case).

What is the approach of the top competition globally? A quote from the Singapore Ministry of Education is instructive, from their Nurturing Every Child, booklet (2006), “Teach Less, Learn More--Syllabuses will be trimmed without diluting students’ preparedness for higher education. This will free up time for our students to focus on core knowledge and skills.” Their approach is the antithesis of the American “mile wide, inch deep” time wasting approach.

Why aren’t we doing better at teaching math?

Math teachers, especially at the elementary level have far too little math subject knowledge. Also, educators do not understand the hierarchical nature of the study of math. The goal in elementary math must be providing the foundation for higher level study, NOT being able to solve arithmetic problems with a calculator or simplistic, non-universal algorithms, even though that is what is tested at the elementary level.

What can the research tell us? Knowing and Teaching Elementary Mathematics, Liping Ma (2002). Background: She compared Chinese elementary teachers to American elementary teachers.
Chinese teachers have 2 to 3 years of “Normal School” training after a 9th grade education. American teachers have 16 to 18 years of formal education. Chinese students typically outperform U.S. students on international comparisons of mathematics competency in spite of the extra education level of U.S. teachers.

An Example Problem Ma Used in Her Research: Divide 1 ¾ by ½.
What She Found—100% of the Chinese teachers computed the correct answer. Barely 40% of the American teachers computed the correct answer. In the assessment of approaching the problem in more than one way, no American teachers did that while about 35% of Chinese teachers did. In the question of providing at least one correct story (relevant context for students) about 90% of the Chinese teachers were successful while only 2% of the American teachers were able to do it. Ma’s conclusions:

“Even expert teachers, experienced teachers who were [inappropriately] mathematically confident, and teachers who actively participated in current mathematics teaching reform did not seem to have a thorough knowledge of the mathematics taught in elementary school.” Teachers’ subject knowledge correlated very well with their students’ achievement. The number of math courses taken in college did not.

What must be done to fix our education system to really serve the needs of the kids?

1. Elect political representatives at all levels who can prioritize the kids’ welfare over their allegiance to the ed power groups who contribute most to their campaigns. This is vital because the education insiders are all much more interested in protecting their cushy existence than in serving the kids. Their actions and results are irrefutable evidence of this. I was told in my research by several superintendents when I pressed them on how the kids could be so poorly served, “Paul, you don’t understand. Education is run to benefit the adults who work here, not the kids.” They won’t change unless forced to. It is that simple. The Massachusetts legislature was able to overcome the power group influence and install content rich standards. Why can’t Colorado legislators?

2. Help spread the word far and wide about the truth of our educational performance. The educators have been very successful in using propaganda methods to hide the truth.

3. Realize that while well meaning for the most part, educators don’t understand the reality of their false beliefs and the harm they are doing. We can’t educate them by civil discussions. I have tried for years and years. They just ignore the truth because they fall back to their brainwashed faith in the false gods taught them in their ed schools and reinforced strongly in their daily work. Education is definitely an “all the puffer bellies all in a row” environment. Thus, it is up to the public to confront the harmful beliefs and methods of our education system. This is the only way that positive change can happen. We must have stronger staying power than the education fiefdom members (delusional, defensive, insular, and inbred).

4. Demand the current constructivist curricula be eliminated from all of our schools. These include Whole Language and its renamed progeny along with math curricula like EveryDay Math that do not provide the foundation required for even algebra, let alone more advanced math studies so important in today’s global competitive environment.

5. Demand that rigorous subject knowledge tests be required for teacher certification. Also, require periodic rigorous subject knowledge testing for maintaining teacher certification regardless of tenure.

The list could go on but addressing these problems would provide a real boost to kids’ education prospects. I hope you will sign up for duty in the “Force Better Education for Our Kids” army. The kids’ need powerful advocacy to overcome the entrenched status quo bias of the self-satisfied education fiefdom.

Taking on an entrenched and wrong set of beliefs.

You are probably at least a bit familiar with the conflict between Galileo and the Roman Church over the earth-centered (geocentric) view then believed and Galileo’s sun-centered (heliocentric) theory based on his scientific observations. This story is one of an entrenched power structure that defends its beliefs in spite of scientific proof of their inadequacy. In fact, it is the story of trying to destroy those who held opposing views.

The first attack on Galileo came when clerics denounced him to the Roman Inquisition early in 1615. Although he was cleared of any offence at that time, the Catholic Church nevertheless condemned heliocentrism as "false and contrary to Scripture." Galileo was warned to abandon his support for it—which he promised to do. [This could be termed a “live to fight another day” approach] When he later defended his views in his most famous work, Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, published in 1632, he was tried by the Inquisition, found "vehemently suspect of heresy," forced to recant, and spent the rest of his life under house arrest. Also, the publication of any of his writings past or future was forbidden. Although he tried to remain loyal to the Catholic Church, his adherence to scientific experimental results, and their objective interpretation, led to a rejection of assertions contrary to observation, in matters of science.

You might well think that you are glad you live in a world where such things can no longer occur. You would be wrong. Oh, certainly things are not so openly biased but going against an entrenched and fixed in their beliefs monolith is not easier or safer today than it was in Galileo’s time. Instead of Inquisitions new methods are now employed to prevent the truth from being recognized and acted upon.

• The first set of techniques is to go on their way reinforcing their false beliefs while actively ignoring the truth as presented by “outsiders.”

• The second technique is to create a façade of expertise. This false (in the face of the evidence) posturing as the experts is very effective especially if they are careful to not react defensively which might give the outsiders’ arguments credibility.

• To reinforce their expert reputations they give themselves false trappings; including certificates of expertise (diplomas) and continuing education in the false doctrine from other “departments” of the monolith.

• Any problems with performance related to using the false but mainline approaches are blamed on other factors and people that the insiders do not control. This, “We confess it is their fault” approach is incredibly effective to the majority of the credulous populace.

• They are also adept at using their leverage on politicians to preserve their power to prevent concerns over their false beliefs.

Yes, I am building an analogue to our education system. The similarities are robust.

Acting on Reality in Times of Tight Education Budgets, An Opportunity and a Responsibility

Tight budgets are a perfect opportunity to assess the validity of underlying assumptions within our education system. The board deliberations of a large local district are instructive as to the logical traps that tend to prevent facing reality and taking appropriate actions. To date in their deliberations the board has followed the guidance of the “status quo at all costs” administration recommendations. One example will make the point. Two well meaning and kid advocate board members voted against cutting literacy and math programs for K-8. That is akin to voting to preserve the dosage of intellectual arsenic to those kids. You see, they made the assumption that the programs were worthwhile and having a positive impact. But foundationally both the literacy and math curricula are based on scientifically unsound beliefs. While our competitor nations and even the best states (ex. Massachusetts) have embraced curricula that work and pass scientific scrutiny. They feel no need at all to worship false education beliefs especially when it would harm their kids. Thus the answer is not preserving the added time and effort to inflict the harmful curricula on the kids. The answer is to install curricula that actually work and make sure they are well taught.

This tight budget period is a perfect opportunity to put on your netting and “kick the hornet’s nest” to excise the false educational beliefs from our education organizations. Administrators who cannot admit the error of their ways are perfect candidates for not having their contracts renewed. Don’t feel sorry for them. The choice is eliminating their false beliefs or ignoring the harm they are doing year after year to the kids. That is an easy decision to make. That would reduce the negative drag on performance more than any of the current alternatives that are based on a false foundation of wrong beliefs.

This is an opportunity that must be taken. It will mean taking positions on performance and substance of the education process that are different, but much more effective, than those held by the governmental education bureaucracies, the education schools, the administrators, etc. That is, there is no rule against having higher standards than the very weak standards at the state and national level. There is also no rule against using curricula that are scientifically sound and work. If we care about the kids let our actions show it. Words and platitudes are not enough.