Sunday, November 30, 2014

Radical Left Influence Over Education Not Just for Higher Ed Anymore

Radical Left Influence Over Education Not Just for Higher Ed Anymore

In a recent report on The Kelly File, Megyn Kelly and Dinesh D’Souza addressed leftism in education. Many of the topics discussed are issues we cover at College Insurrection.

Watch:

Naturally, this report didn’t sit well with the left.

Brendan James of Talking Points Memo opened by highlighting D’Souza’s recent legal troubles in an obvious effort to discredit him: (Emphasis is mine.)

D’Souza And Kelly: Liberal Professors (And Unions) Brainwash Our Kids (VIDEO)

Fox News host Megyn Kelly joined conservative author and convicted felon Dinesh D’Souza on Friday to warn viewers of a grand left wing conspiracy to infiltrate and control the American education system.

Fighting the liberal grip on college campuses has long been a cause on the right, but on “The Kelly File,” D’Souza argued the rot now goes as deep as secondary and elementary schools, where children are radicalized by anti-American militants.

“They don’t care about parents,” D’Souza said, speaking about liberal teachers and professors on campus. “They just feel unaccountable to legislators, unaccountable to alumni, unaccountable to parents.”

Kelly went on to place blame on “the unions that don’t allow teachers to get fired, no matter how radical, no matter how bad, no matter what they do.”

D’Souza admitted his crime and is paying for it but what does that matter?

Can’t win an argument? Just smear your opponent.

Featured image via FOX News Video.




U.S. Wants Teacher Training Programs to Track How Graduates’ Students Perform

U.S. Wants Teacher Training Programs to Track How Graduates’ Students Perform

The federal Department of Education announced preliminary rules on Tuesday requiring states to develop rating systems for teacher preparation programs that would track a range of measures, including the job placement and retention rates of graduates and the academic performance of their students.

In a move that drew some criticism, the Education Department said the new rating systems could be used to determine eligibility for certain federal grants used by teacher candidates to help pay for their training.

Critics have long faulted teacher training as inadequately preparing candidates for the realities and rigors of the job.

In a conference call with reporters, Arne Duncan, the secretary of education, said that far too many education programs set lower requirements for entry than other university majors.

“The last thing they want or need is an easy A,” Mr. Duncan said. “This is nothing short of a moral issue. All educators want to do a great job for their students, but too often they struggle at the beginning of their careers and have to figure out too much on the job by themselves.”




OUR CHILDREN ARE BEING HIJACKED

Are American class periods too short for Common Core?

By

As districts across the country implement Common Core, educators – such as these in Elverson, PennsylvaniaCalistoga, California, and Wilmington, Delaware – are calling for a restructuring of the school day so that students spend more time in each class. Instead of the typical class period of about 45 minutes, schools are lengthening classes to upwards of 90 minutes to cover all the material and allow teachers to change the way they teach to meet the new requirements.

Common Core, a set of standards in math and English in place in over 40 states, only directs what students should know at the end of each grade, but it’s also affecting how lessons are taught.

Jamie Wall, a math teacher at Brooklawn Middle School in Parsippany, New Jersey, used her state’s shift to Common Core to fulfill a teaching dream – her math students spending the entire period working collaboratively in groups – but says that her school’s schedule isn’t ideal for this kind of teaching.

“From the beginning of my teaching career, I didn’t want to just be up there and teach them,” said Wall. “I wanted to get them into groups and get them talking to each other about math concepts. I wanted them to develop math strategies and solve problems together. That all works very well for Common Core.”

Related: Tennessee’s Common Core backtrack strands teachers, students

“I teach in 40 minute periods,” added Wall. “This type of collaborative learning can be done in 40 minutes, but it’s hard.”

Under the Common Core State Standards, students will be asked to spend more time learning certain math concepts and will skip others. The idea is to give them a stronger foundation for algebra. (Photo: Sarah Garland)

Under the Common Core State Standards, students will be asked to spend more time learning certain math concepts and will skip others. The idea is to give them a stronger foundation for algebra. (Photo: Sarah Garland)

Other Common Core math supporters, often pointing to Japanese classrooms, have suggested that teachers could spend upwards of 15 minutes just discussing the ins and outs of a single problem.

“We haven’t heard a call specifically for block scheduling,” said Donna Harris-Aikens – Director of Education Policy and Practice at the National Education Association, the nation’s largest teachers union – referring to a scheduling technique that doubles the typical 45-minute class period to 90 minutes.

“But what educators are calling for is more time. More time if we want to have kids do things like work collaboratively but also more time for educators to talk to each other about what changes might need to be made in what is taught and how it is taught,” she added.

Related: Common Core math experts say teachers need to stop using shortcuts and math ‘tricks’

“Most of the high performing schools we have seen do not maintain the 40- or 45-minute block schedule,” said Jennifer Davis, cofounder and president of the National Center on Time and Learning, a non-profit dedicated to redesigning and expanding school time. “In those schools, when you walk into a classroom you see four or five groups of kids, some are getting support through high-quality computer programs, some are working in a small group with a teacher and some are working in small groups just among themselves. It is very difficult to do that kind of rotation in a typical 45-minute block.”

Some see scheduling techniques that reduce the number of class periods a teacher teaches as not just an opportunity to change how classes are taught but as a way to add planning time for teachers.

Davis says this increased planning is critical as schools take on the Common Core.

“Teachers need to be grappling with the standards together,” said Davis. “They need to be sharing lesson plans and reviewing each other’s lesson plans. They need to be coming back together after being in the classroom and sharing what’s working and what’s not working, who got it and who didn’t get it. This kind of collaborative learning on the part of teachers is essential to the success of Common Core implementation.”

Related: What makes a good Common Core math question?

Both Harris-Aikens and Davis say scheduling decisions need to be made at the local level.

“Honestly, I think it is a school-by-school decision,” said Harris-Aikens. “Take a real look at what your kids are doing during the day and think about tweaks like alternating days, block scheduling, or the semester plan.”

Harris-Aikens advises schools to ask parents and students what they think before major schedule changes.

“Students, especially your high school students, will have strong opinions,” she added.

This story was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news website focused on inequality and innovation in education. Read more about Common Core.




Wednesday, November 26, 2014

COMMON CORE TALKInG POINTS


http://ohiorising.org/talk-common-core-over-the-holidays/

Gates and Pearson Partner to Reap Tens of Millions from Common Core

Gates and Pearson Partner to Reap Tens of Millions from Common Core

0

Education · Featured

  • November 25, 2014

Bill Gates Common CoreFollow the money. It all ends up in the hands of a very few. Pearson Foundation is getting the contracts because of its partnership with the Bill Gates Foundation. Greed, secrecy, deceptions, and lies …. and to think Democrats accuse Republicans of the very things, while Democrats are the ones using government to get richer. The deceptions run very deep. It’s time for exposure.

The saga begins on one summer day in 2008, when Gene Wilhoit, director of a national group of state school chiefs, and David Coleman (known as the architect of Common Core), knowing they needed tens of millions of dollars and a champion to overcome the politics that had thwarted previous attempts to institute national standards, approached Bill Gates at his headquarters near Seattle, to convince Gates and his wife to sign on to their idea.  Gates, upon asking if states were serious about common educational standards, was assured that they were. Gates signed on and the remarkable shift in education policy know as Common Core was born.

The Gates Foundation has spent over $170 million to manipulate the U.S. Department of Education to impose the CSSS, knowing it would realize a return on this investment as school districts and parents rush to buy the technology products they’ve been convinced are vital to improving education.  Bill Gates’ Microsoft will make a fortune form the sale of new technology products.  According to the Gates Foundation, CCSS is seen as a “step to greater excellence in education.”

On April 27, 2011 the Gates Foundation joined forces with the Pearson Foundation, a British multi-national conglomerate, representing the largest private business maneuvering for U.S. education dollars. Pearson executives saw the potential to secure lucrative contracts in testing, textbooks and software worth tens of millions of dollars.

Its partnership with the Gates Foundation was to support America’s teachers by creating a full series of digital instructional resources. Online courses in Math and Reading/English Language Arts would offer a coherent and systemic approach to teaching the new Common Core State Standard. The aim: To create an online curriculum for those standards in mathematics and English language arts that span nearly every year of a child’s pre-collegiate education. This aim has already been realized and is in practice in Common Core states.

The Pearson and Gates foundations also fund the Education Development Center (EDC) based in Waltham, Massachusetts. It is a global nonprofit organization that designs teacher evaluation policy.  Both stand to benefit from EDC recommendations. The center is involved in curriculum and materials development, research and evaluation, publication and distribution, online learning, professional development, and public policy development.

Its alignment with the Gates Foundation and Common Core, Pearson dominates the education testing and is raking in profits as school districts are pushed to replace paper textbooks with digital technology.  For example, the Los Angeles school system with 651 students, spent over $1 billion in 2013 to purchase iPads from Pearson.  Additionally, The Los Angeles school purchased Pearson’s Common Core Systems of Courses to provide all the primary instructional material for math and English/language arts for K-12, even though the material were incomplete in 2013.

Pearson’s profits will continue to increase as it has billions of dollars in long-term contracts with education department in a number of states and municipalities to introduce both testing software and the teacher training software and textbooks it claims are necessary to prepare for the tests. For example, Illinois has paid Pearson $138 million to produce standardized tests; Texas, $50 million; and New York, $32 million.

Pearson is really raking in the dough now that Pearson VUE, the assessment services wing of Pearson, has acquired examination software development company Exam Design.  CTS/McGraw-Hill is Pearson’s main competitor in the rise of standardized testing.

Corporations finding they can profit from turning students into unimaginative machines, are newly discovering they can likewise profit from standardizing teachers as well. Starting in May 2014, Pearson Education will take over teacher certification in New York State as a way of fulfilling the state’s promised “reforms” in its application for federal Race to the Top money. The evaluation system known as the Teacher Performance assessment or TPA was developed at Stanford University with support from Pearson, but it will be solely administered and prospective teachers will be entirely evaluated by Pearson and its agents.

A small cloud did fall over the Pearson Foundation (the nonprofit arm of educational publishing giant Pearson Inc) in December of 2013, when a $7.7 million fine was levied for using its charitable work to promote and develop course materials and software to benefit its corporate profit making.  After the investigation begun, Pearson Foundation sold the courses to Pearson for $15.1 million.

New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman determined that the foundation had created Common Core products to generate “tens of millions of dollars” for its corporate sister. According to the settlement: “Pearson used its nonprofit foundation to develop Common Core product in order to win an endorsement from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which helped fund the creation of the Common Core standards, having announced in 2011 that it would work with the Pearson foundation to write reading and math courses aligned with the new standard.”

Since Pearson is the world largest education company and book publisher, with profits of more than $9 billion annually, the $7.7 million fine was not a hardship. Pearson, wasn’t always so big.  As a British multinational corporation Pearson was just starting out in the early 2000’s. Pearson started to grow when it embraced No Child Left Behind as its business plan and began rapidly buying up U.S. companies.

On June 10 of this year, The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation announced its support for a two-year moratorium on tying results from assessments aligned to the Common Core State Standards to teacher evaluations or student promotions to the next grade level.

Although the Gates Foundation’s director of college-ready programs stated how Common Core was having a very positive impact on education, teachers do need more time to adjust.

The moratorium was enacted when on June 9, Diane Ravitch, research professor of education at New York University and author of “Reign of Error,” sounded the alarm over the implementation of Common Core and called for a congressional investigation, noting, “The idea that the richest man in [the U.S.] can purchase and — working closely with the U.S. Department of Education — impose new and untested academic standards on the nation’s public schools is a national scandal.”

It would be folly to suggest that either Bill Gates or Pearson, despite the temporary tactical retreat by Gates will not keep pushing for Common Core with its required educational technology. This nation spends over $500 billion annually on K-12 education.  When colleges and career-training programs are included, the education sector represents almost 9 percent of the U.S. gross domestic production.  Companies like Pearson and Microsoft stand to greatly profit as they develop and administer the tests and sell the teacher-training material.

It is not unreasonable to suspect that companies like Pearson stand to gain when tests designed to measure Common Core State Standards make most public schools look bad.  Counting on widespread failure of the Common Core State Standards, school districts and parents will be pushed to purchase even more training technology, teachers in low-ranked schools will be fired, and school will be turned over to private management.

As a text book manufacturer, Pearson Education buckled to the activists demands in Texas and replaced the scientific understanding of climate change with the politically driven claim that humans are causing climate change.    Because Texas is a large state, it does have influence on the national textbook market.

Might Common Core State Standards be the latest in the grand corporate scheme to profit from privatized public education?  In the interim, Bill Gates’ Microsoft and Pearson reap big CCSS profits.  Certainly neither teachers nor students are benefiting.




Tuesday, November 25, 2014

The Warping of Simplicity and Eloquence

The Warping of Simplicity and Eloquence

The video above is a must watch for all parents of young children, who have been questioning what in the world is going on with their children’s math work.   It is the articulate testimony given by the Chair of the Math Department, Mr. Layton Elliott, at Brebeuf Jesuit High School in Indianapolis, before the Indiana General Assembly Legislative Study Committee on September 10, 2013.

Parents who watch will be relieved to know that they are in good company, in struggling to successfully explain some of  the “fuzzy” methods being used in Common Core math programs.  Mr. Elliott begins his testimony by describing his experience accompanying high school students on a service project, during which they tutored struggling second graders in math.  With over ten years of teaching middle schoolers and high schoolers, Mr. Elliott assumed he would have a successful experience working with the child assigned to him.  Mr. Elliott says that upon looking at the child’s work sheet “[he] was immediately confused…”  Since the adults monitoring the tutoring impressed upon Mr. Elliott that he was not to use the standard algorithm when showing the student how to add two, two digit numbers, he toiled with the preferred method in vain.  He said that when the two hour period was over and the student still had not mastered two digit addition, he “was stunned!”  He felt that he had failed the student, whom he was confident would likely have been able to master the standard algorithm had he been allowed to show it to him.  Perhaps the most poignant portion of Mr. Elliott’s testimony was when he stated the following in relation to his tutoring experience: “Math’s beauty is in its simplicity and elegance.  What is simple and elegant had been horribly warped into something that was needlessly complex.

Every teacher of young children would do well to listen to Mr. Elliott’s testimony and then ask themselves if their students are enjoying the elegance and simplicity of math.  If the answer is no, perhaps they should reconsider just how much they wish to follow along with the Common Core textbook they are most likely required to use.  At a minimum, they should consider supplementing their material with worksheets of arithmetic problems to  provide the much needed practice so frequently absent in most Common Core programs.  Finally, they should take a look at child psychologist Dr. Megan Koschnick’s recent speech at Notre Dame and consider if Mr. Elliott’s unsuccessful experience had more to do with the developmental inappropriateness of the method he was required to use, than it did with his ability to teach or the student’s ability to learn.

While Dr. Koschnick’s speech is primarily about the developmentally inappropriateness of some of the K-1 Common Core standards, there is something to be gleaned for math teachers of students in grades 2-5, as well.  Dr. Koschnick explains that students in these grades are in what is called the “concrete operational” period of brain development.  According to Koschnick, this is the period in which memorizing and performing “concrete operations” is most in sync with what is occurring developmentally in their brains.  As she puts it, these types of rote learning exercises are “fabulous” and “right up the alley” of students this age.

In contrast, while some children in this age group are beginning to be able to think more abstractly, others are not.  Therefore, spending precious class time trying to teach ALL children to demonstrate mastery of understanding an abstract concepts on the front end, before ever using it, can be extremely time-consuming.  Our hardworking teachers have only so much time in the day.  If they are being forced to try and put a square peg through a round hole in some cases, even if they eventually accomplish it, we have to ask at what “cost” does this come.  The answer is two fold: it comes at the “cost” of far slower pacing of normal skills progression and often in the form of less overall time spent practicing performing the given operation.   This is not to say that teachers shouldn’t begin a new lesson with a brief explanation of the concept, but rather that they should consider putting the “horse back before the cart.”  When students are given ample practice, frequently their understanding of the related abstract concept comes naturally, over time, and may not need to be formally “taught” at all.

This is in fact the approach taken by high-perfroming Asian countries, such as Singapore, Japan, and Finland, who outperform the U.S. on tests such as the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS).   Research comparing the math content standards of these three countries against the Common Core’s, shows that the biggest difference is that approximately 75% of theirs involves “perform procedures,” whereas only 38% of the Common Core’s do.  The incredibly slow pacing of skills progression under Common Core math standards is one of the reason Stanford Mathematician, and Common Core Validation Committee member, James Milgram testified that Common Core will place American students two years behind their counterparts in high performing countries, by the end of 8th grade.  Can or should we really slow students’ mathematic progression down in order to train them to “regurgitate” explanations of abstract concepts?  Or, is it leaving them standing in place, under the guise of “deeper learning,” rather than allowing them to move on and learn the next logical mathematical operation?  I maintain that for some students it is needlessly confusing and frustrating, for others it simply a waste of time, and for all it retards their potential progress.   All teachers, principals, and administrators should rethink this lopsided bargain!




FUTURE READY SCHOOLS

Future Ready

Future Ready builds on the momentum of the President’s ConnectED Initiative with the launch of the Future Ready Pledge. The pledge recognizes the importance of building human capacity within schools and districts for effectively using increased connectivity and new devices to transform teaching and learning.

Featured Video

Are we preparing our students to be Future Ready? Ben Grey, Assistant Superintendent for Innovation & Communication for CCSD 59, tells his district's Future Ready story.

Upcoming Events

Future Ready Regional Summits

The Future Ready Regional Summits will focus on a comprehensive set of issues that drive student learning. The summits will highlight the experiences of districts in each region and offer district leaders tangible ways to build capacity among their teams and throughout their districts.

Future Ready Pledge Signers

District superintendents representing millions of students from across the U.S. have signed the Future Ready Pledge. Has your district leader signed the pledge?

Featured Resources

Featured Image

Future Ready Schools: Professional Learning Toolkit

November 2014

The toolkit provides rubrics, checklists and examples to assist district teams as they develop, refine, and evaluate professional learning plans that align with their capacity, learning goals, and standards of professional learning. In particular, the toolkit focuses on how districts can use technology to connect educators and provide tailored professional learning experiences.

Future Ready Hangouts

What are Future Ready schools and classrooms?

How do we support Future Ready teaching?

How do we measure Future Ready progress?