NAACP: "Keep your children in failing schools"

June 29, 2004 In Thomas Sowell's most recent column, he writes:

People sometimes ask if I have tried to convince black "leaders" to take a different view on racial issues. Of course not. I wouldn't spend my time trying to persuade the mafia to give up crime. Why should I spend time trying to convince race hustlers to give up victimhood? It's their bread and butter.

The NAACP is one such group of "leaders" which works tirelessly to maintain the status quo, to ensure a steady flow of grievances. Some of these grievances are legitimate, and one of the areas where blacks are hit hardest is in our urban school districts, (largely comprised of government monopoly schools), many of which have seemingly forgotten how to teach.

If the NAACP wanted to help in this area, they could simply join forces with the Black Alliance of Educational Options (BAEO) and work for parental choice, for a free market works wonders in improving schools.

As if on cue, today the Florida Times-Union published a list of recommendations by the NAACP for parents of children in Florida's failing schools. Florida gives parents a choice to withdraw their children from schools receiving a failing grade two years in a row (or parents can request a voucher for a private school). In Jacksonville, "[n]early all of the students at those schools are African-American," reports the Times Union.

It would seem an open-and-shut case for parental choice to rule the day. But no.

In the interest of public service we reprint all of the NAACP's recommendations, beginning with the most jaw-dropping one (emphasis ours):

To the parents of students who received letters informing you that you may transfer your child from one of the failing schools, do not transfer them. Leave them there and monitor your child, the teachers and the administration.

See, if parents transferred their children, the NAACP would run the risk that:
a) The children would attend better schools.
b) The chronically failing schools would close or be reconstituted.
c) The borderline schools would wake up and begin teaching again.

All of these things would reduce the supply of future victims, and they can't abide that.

Here are the rest of the NAACP's recommendations, with our comments. (Emphasis ours.)

Tie the superintendent's salary increase or extension of contract to the elimination of all "failing schools." If these schools are not removed off the list by the beginning of the 2005-2006 school year, his contract should be reduced to one year and he should receive no increase in salary.

In other words, even though the identification of failing schools began years ago, we should postpone any accountability on the part of the superintendent until 14 months from now, at which time he'd receive a mild wrist-slap.

If any of these schools (schools with an F grade) receive another F grade, the [school system] should take immediate steps to transfer all national board-certified teachers to these schools.

So instead of two Fs, we need three Fs to take action. Even this action is questionable. And it might be nice if there were any confidence that "national board certification" has any proven value, which thus far is a highly debatable proposition. A final question: will the teachers have a say in their transfers?

The superintendent and his staff should hold quarterly meetings in Challenged Schools Districts Regions I and II to explain to parents, the NAACP and the entire community the progress or lack of progress being made by these schools.

Talking is one thing these folks are good at, especially explaining away failures with yet more excuses.

The district technology department should make available "loaner laptops" to Level II students so that they can access the FCAT Explorer math and reading tutorials from their home.

As if the FCAT Explorer tutorials are a good substitute for teaching kids right the first time.

All failing schools should have their media center open for a minimum of three hours after school and on Saturday to assist with reading and literacy.

If these schools are failing, we might suggest that more time spent there won't be the solution. Tutoring is a great help to kids who are behind, but these schools need to ask how these kids got so far behind in the first place.

Place highly qualified, committed and experienced administrators, faculty and staff at failing schools and provide extra compensation for them.

We think this is a great idea. Just one problem. You gotta get the union to agree. [cue sound of crickets chirping]

Provide extensive professional development for all school personnel. The training must include sensitivity training and the infusion of African-American history into the curriculum.

Ah, those handy old standbys: racism and Afrocentrism. Black kids aren't learning because their teachers aren't sensitive enough? Black kids aren't learning because the curriculum isn't black enough? Give us a break.

Technology must be an integral part of all schools, maintained and in operation at all times, with adequate training provided to staff.

Educational technology has wonderful potential, but when faced with a two-year track record of failure, that's the wrong place to look for a solution. (We've been there, trust us. We worked for years in computer labs before figuring out that technology wasn't helping our kids learn English or math better.)

Require continuity and regular attendance of all staff and students.

These aren't required now?

Allow schools the flexibility to choose and implement best practices that are appropriate for the students that they serve.

Flexibility is good, but be careful of the phrase "appropriate for the students they serve," for that's usually a code for "treating black or hispanic students differently." Kids are kids are kids. Just teach them the way you'd teach any group of children.

Have schools develop individual instructional plans for each student at or below Level 2.

Not a bad suggestion. The highest-performing schools identify their lowest-achievers and immediately begin remediation to bring them up to speed. Schools that don't do this are kidding themselves that these kids will ever catch up on their own.

District support must be evident at all levels, i.e., social workers must visit homes of truant students and help parents develop strategies to get their children to school and on time. There should be a check and balance system to assure that these visits are made.

Again, this isn't done already?

Make sure that the academic courses offered students are those that will help them master the Sunshine State Standards assessed on the FCAT, for example, no later than 10th grade all students should have taken Algebra 1 and English I and II.

Not a bad suggestion. But more important is the foundation of knowledge and skills that students must have before ever getting to 10th grade! Programs like Balanced Literacy or Whole Language sacrifice children's future study of high school English, and New-New math programs endorsed by the NCTM in elementary and middle school sacrifice students' future study of high school math.

Restore discipline by requiring a dress code for students, faculty and staff.

They seem to confuse correlation with causation. True, at many private schools where behavior isn't a problem the kids are all nattily dressed. But a school uniform doesn't "restore discipline." That is the job of the teachers and administrators.

Hold students accountable for their behavior. If they don't follow the Code of Conduct or the school's rules, require parents to come in for a conference or suspend them from classes or school until their behavior improves.

This isn't already required? (See our 5-Step Ladder for school discipline.)

Implement and enforce parental involvement programs to strengthen parent accountability.

Careful here, for "parent involvement first" is a red herring. Parents are an important resource, and schools should welcome them with open arms. But don't blame them for your failing schools.

Support and strengthen the use of Project REACH.

There must be a greater effort in staffing Project Reach Full Service School Program and providing extensive marketing to the community of its offerings.

Project Reach is a volunteer-run tutoring program. We're all for tutoring, as long as the key issue--of why these schools are not teaching kids to read and do math--is addressed.

Work with community organizations and groups to provide coordinated services to students and parents that reinforce the schools' instructional program. These organizations could include but not be limited to City of Jacksonville's Recreation Department and all of the Club Rec sites, Jacksonville public libraries, Jacksonville Police Athletic League, Boys and Girls Clubs, Girls Inc., all local churches, fraternities and sororities.

Ties to community organizations are great. But what is the real issue here: a lack of community ties or failing schools? Over two years ago, a number of community organizations in and around Jacksonville proposed these same things (including Project Reach). And here we are, two years later, with double-failures of a number of schools.

Strengthen the partnership with the City of Jacksonville to improve and enrich neighborhoods, such as parks, recreational facilities, shopping, eateries and cultural events.

Focus, people! Address the failing schools, not the "eateries and cultural events."

Work with all social service agencies, HUD and HUD tenant groups to help parents develop realistic strategies to discipline their children and to help their children be prepared to get a good education.

Not a bad thought. We'd suggest parents be trained in the use of Setting Limits, a program for setting firm, appropriate boundaries by Robert MacKenzie. (He has versions for classroom teachers as well as parents of "strong-willed" children.)

Work with the ministerial organizations to help local churches that do not have a reading program and/or tutorial program for children, establish at least a reading program.

Good idea, but again, why should all these groups pick up the slack from schools which aren't teaching reading effectively?

Work with the local media to encourage and inform parents about what to do to help their children get a quality education. For example, start now getting ready for the opening of school by telling parents how to read and use progress reports, when to expect report cards, and how to cooperate with teachers.

This is common sense. Parents don't need to be taught "how to cooperate with teachers."

Invite and award grants to churches and community organizations to implement after school tutorial programs.

With what money?

We support the old African proverb which says, "It takes a whole village to raise a child." Based on this proverb, we implore everyone-- the superintendent, School Board members, parents, students, teachers, administrators, staff, and the community -- to let us all join together and work with our failing schools so that next year we will have no failing schools.

It is a pipe dream to think that in one year you'll have no failing schools. Get realistic, and start thinking in terms of how to get our kids out, and into effective ones. The schools could magically transform overnight (and it has happened), or you can encourage parents to do the best thing for their kids, which is to transfer to a non-failing school.

Don't force children to be lambs in your social experiment in maintaining the status quo at failing schools.

They deserve better.

Help needed for schools in a free Iraq

June 28, 2004 We've been very interested in the progress of a free Iraq, and especially by what our troops are doing for Iraqi children and schools, as we wrote back in February.

Recently a school yard blogger wrote of her experience at a "luncheon with the troops" with soldiers freshly returned from service in Iraq, and today has a nice breakdown of what has been accomplished since the end of the Hussein regime.

Our troops first fought with honor, then immediately turned-to on the task of rebuilding the country, again with honor. Having served in the U.S. military, we can honestly say that no part of our training focused on "rebuilding a country" especially decidedly non-military issues such as renovating and restocking schools. The amazing successes of our servicemen and women is therefore a testament to their dedication and professionalism. They truly are America's best.

Via the Iraq The Model blog, we found something right up our alley: IraqiSchools.com, a grassroots organization dedicated to supporting Iraq's schools and her children, now managed from Baghdad by the Army's 1-7 Cavalry.

Major Nathan E. Hines, III, of the 1-7 Cav. is shown at right. This spring, he wrote:

Your efforts have continued to have a tremendous impact on our operations here in Iraq. We have distributed thousands of pounds of school supplies, toys, stuffed animals, clothes, and sports equipment. In addition some of you have sent items for the soldiers. When distributed the soldiers are grateful and at the same time somewhat surprised by your generosity for both them and the children of Iraq.

Major Hines continues (emphasis ours):

The program is going strong. I have received countless emails and letters from people thanking us for the job we do and giving me a heads-up on what they are sending or have sent.

As you would expect, the pace of the transition to authority to the Iraqi people and the training of a New Iraqi Army is a high priority for our unit. Your impact will be felt for years to come, as the children you help through your donations become adults in a free Iraq. The looks on the faces of the kids as they receive pencils, pens, paper, crayons, soccer balls, Frisbees, stuffed animals, toys, and other items is a motivating factor in this country for the men of the 1st Squadron, 7th U.S. Cavalry, 1st Cavalry Division.

In the past three months the Officers, Non Commissioned Officers and Troopers of this Squadron, have ridden an emotional rollercoaster when it comes to the execution of this mission in Iraq. What most people don’t realize is that on a daily basis we are shot at, Improvised Explosive Devices (IED) are detonated or found, soldiers are wounded, and on May 15, 2004 SSG Rene Ledesma was killed as he was conducting a reconnaissance patrol in Baghdad.

Even with this happening your sons and daughters continue to make an impact on the children of this country.

The pain of the loss makes it all the more important to get this country back on track so that their blood was not shed in vain. The youngest soldier in our formation has begun to realize the importance of what we do for the children. They execute the missions for the children with the same effort and zeal as they do combat operations.

Who knows what the future holds for Iraq? I believe Iraq has a chance and that means your efforts will be a big part of making it a better place to live in the future.

How can you help? Please visit IraqiSchools.com's Needs page to see what you can do.

Hip-hop Pythagoras: Kills grammar dead

June 27, 2004 At the end of this school year all our students were supposed to write a "research paper" (we use the term very loosely) on some topic from Mathematics.

Despite our crystal clear instructions and thorough discussion of plagiarism--and lectures on the fact that copying-and-pasting from Internet websites does not comprise research--the results were almost uniformly appalling. Only a few students bothered to actually read articles their topic, and even fewer bothered to write about it.

Vinsent, one of our students, did a lot of copy-and-paste, but also showed that he'd at least read a little of the life of Pythagoras, and wrote some original exposition. (Earlier in the year we proved the Pythagorean Theorem: a² + b² = c².)

The following verbatim passage is the conclusion of Vinsent's paper:

Pythagoras had extremely to much time on his hands. When a nigga start putting music in to mathematical terms you known he got to be bored as hell. Frankly I don’t think the man had any friends as a little kid. Don’t you see the dude had issues, anyway much respect for man though because he did contribute to something that made the whole human race more advanced so thanks to him.

We're simultaneously amused and horrified.

We admire the kid's chutzpah, but cringe at the thought that this student has made it through ten years of schooling and writes like this.

Might we suggest that schools focus more on teaching grammar and the skills of writing rather than engaging in the endless quest to make learning more "relevant" to our youth?

Peace out, y'all.

Congratulations class of 2004

June 24, 2004 Last night we attended the commencement exercises of our charter school. (At right is one of our students--who got an A in math and is headed for a career in the U.S. Air Force--coming down the aisle.)

While we were dismayed at the lack of decorum by those in attendance--only a handful of men were even wearing a necktie (and half of those were in Armed Forces uniforms)--the raucous atmosphere reminded us that this was a momentous occasion for our students and their families. In the inner city, high school graduation is far from a sure thing, and at our charter school we strive to have our diploma mean something: every graduate who wanted to go to college was accepted into one, many with scholarships.

Our valedictorian was a recent immigrant to the United States when she began as a freshman four years ago. She worked very, very hard to overcome her personal and language obstacles and earned excellent grades through her efforts.

She shared with us that when she was filling out college applications and student loan forms this year she had serious doubts that she and her family would be able to afford college, and she voiced her concern to her father.

He said, "Begin to weave . . . and God will supply the thread."

Weave she did, pouring her heart and soul not only into her classwork--she's graduating with a 4-year GPA just shy of 4.0--but into the personal essays required for her applications. Then one day this spring she was summoned into the counselor's office.

The thread had arrived.

Our soon-to-be valedictorian was not only accepted into an excellent Main Line college, but was awarded a full 4-year scholarship.

We'll close with a line from our guest speaker Lisa Harris, who exhorted our graduates, "Instead of getting your name tattooed on your arm, write your name in history." We have little doubt that some of our graduates will do just that.

Of the class of 2004, we are so very proud.

More on Connected Mathematics and Research

June 22, 2004 Last time we criticized the Connected Mathematics Program (CMP) using a study which they published on their own website. We found more data in support of our argument (and we promise this will be the last CMP posting for a while).

The graph at right is taken from yet another study published on the CMP website. Here, they compare the results from their program (blue line) to students not using CMP (black line), using scores from the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS), a widely-used standardized test.

(Note that the three graphs do not represent longitudinal data, meaning that the 6th, 7th and 8th grade students tested are actually three different groups of students.)

Take a close look at the graph. See anything strange?

For starters, not only do all six lines show significant gains over the time periods measured, but they almost all show the same gain (indicated by the same slopes on most of the lines).

The one exception to this is the first graph, where the group not using CMP showed a greater rate of gain than the CMP students.

(This matched-slope phenomena is identical to what we found when we first began to research Everyday Mathematics--aka "Chicago Math"--as we described in December. Everyday Math is cut from the same cloth as CMP: based on regrettably weak NCTM standards, and just as useless to our students.)

After studying the CMP graph we are left with a few nagging questions.

For starters, in each of the three graphs, why does the CMP group have such a dramatically different grade level at the start from the non-CMP group? Being that "tracking" is all but banished from school systems, (and never was much of an issue in middle school) how did they get two groups of 6th grade students where the average grade-level was a year apart?

This leads us to our second question, also involving the graph of 6th graders. In the graph, the non-CMP group (black line) is shown as starting out at just a hair above the 7th grade level, but at the end of the school year has shot up to end up two-thirds the way to 9th grade!

We want to know what math program they were using!

As for using this data to support CMP, color us unimpressed. We like to call research like this "striving for legitimacy."

Program designers are full of contradictions, for they push their latest and greatest program with claims that it is better than what is now in place (otherwise, why switch?) then when the data really doesn't show much improvement at all, they trumpet, "See? It's just as good!"

Unfortunately, it isn't just as good.

Connected Mathematics Program: A Critique

June 22, 2004 As high school teachers, we are painfully aware of the gaps in our students' skill sets, gaps of skills that should have been cemented in middle school, gaps which make learning high school content all the more difficult.

Mathematical Foundation
In elementary school, it is assumed students learn how to add, subtract, multiply and divide, and learn a little about fractions, decimals, and percents (just to name a few core concepts). It is in middle school--around the 6th, 7th and 8th grades--that students go deeper with these same skills, such as adding, subtracting, multiplying and dividing fractions, decimals and percents, and the conversions between fractions, decimals, and percents (again, just to name a few core skills).

Middle school students should also learn the basics of exponents and roots, and get a solid grounding in early algebra, such as using variables and manipulating equations. By the end of their 8th grade year, students should be doing bona fide algebra (albeit at a middle school level), so that upon entering high school, the student is ready for the high school math sequence.

This sequence (for prepared students) typically is Algebra I, Geometry, Algebra II/Trigonometry, with Calculus in the senior year.

The foundation for a successful 4-year high school math sequence lies in solid teaching and learning in middle school.

With this in mind, let's revisit the University of Washington study (which we mentioned last time) which compared the middle school curriculum of the Connected Mathematics Program (CMP), Mathematics in Context (MIC), and Singapore Mathematics.

NCTM busters
As we've pointed out, this study is actually cited on the CMP website as a supportive reference, for the simple fact that it complies with NCTM standards. The U of W researchers (mathematicians, all) don't appear to have much faith in the NCTM's push for student-centered learning, constructivism, and the discovery process. (We liken reliance on the discovery method to reinventing the wheel.)

So while the researchers rank the Singapore curriculum below CMP, they do so only using the NCTM measuring stick, which they clearly find inferior to, oh, the measuring stick the rest of the world uses. On the merits of what is really important to middle school mathematics (namely the teaching of middle school mathematics), the U of W rearchers rate the Singapore math program very highly.

With a boost from the Kids Do Count website, we reprint here some juicy quotes from this study.

Discovery Learning
An early casualty of New-New Math programs is our best and brightest:

Moreover, we are skeptical about the possibility of maintaining the interest of high-end students while progressing at the [slow] pace necessitated by the discovery process . . .

Reinventing the wheel is more time-consuming than using an existing wheel:

A related comment is that discovery-based learning naturally takes more time than the traditional lecture-then-practice format.

Which then detracts from how much math can be learned in the same amount of time:

Also, in order for students to effectively discover the mathematics, more time needs to be devoted to the lessons than in a traditional curriculum. The recommended minimum of 45 minute-long classes seems insufficient.

As we've discussed before, there's nothing wrong with judicious use the discovery method, as long as it is immediately followed by concrete teaching, to make sure the lesson is learned, practiced, and remembered. Unfortunately, in CMP, we have this:

[E]xponents are discussed, but the exponential laws are not explicitly written down even after they are discovered. In one exercise students discover that 2⁶ = (2²)³, but they need more practice to reach the generalization that (aⁿ)^m = a^nm.

But practice is supposed to be such a drag, so that too is skipped.

The Fractions Nuisance
Apparently, even though CMP was designed to NCTM standards, they fall short in one key area, namely that having to do with numbers:

CMP and MIC do not meet these new standards in the number strand, one of the most fundamental subjects in Mathematics. For example, division of fractions is not discussed at all even through 8th grade in CMP . . .

This probably explains why our high school students don't know what to do when faced with "three-fourths x equals nine."

[In the 2000 NCTM Standard for fractions, which Connected Math will try to follow], it appears to suggest that division [of fractions] should be done by repeated subtraction . . . which is a flawed algorithm in our opinion and not generalizable to all fractions.

Hmm . . . where do we remember the concept of "division by repeated subtraction"? Oh, that's right, second grade. Simply teaching kids that "dividing by a fraction is the same as multiplying by the reciprocal" is a horrifying thought to the CMP folks, for it involves direct instruction without the use of a handy toy or manipulative.

So it is skipped altogether.

Remember finding the lowest common denominator? Well with a calculator, you needn't bother!

Students are not working with general fractions to compare them by finding common denominators. By the end of the 8th grade, we feel this is a skill students should have. Instead they use a calculator, which converts the fractions to an approximate decimal form. CMP and MIC were designed to the 1989 NCTM Standards, which had very low standards with regard to fluency and skills involving fractions.

In summary, regarding fractions, decimals, and percents (arguably one of the main reasons kids take math in middle school):

Specifically we find that CMP students are not expected to compute fluently, flexibly and efficiently with fractions, decimals and percents as late as 8th grade. Standard algorithms for computation with fractions . . . are not used.

Keep it Concrete (Death of Abstraction)
One common aspect of NCTM-based programs is the obsession with reality-based problems and concrete examples. If they can't find a real-world example or find an easy visualization to express a concept, then the concept couldn't be very important, right?

CMP and MIC meet the 2000 NCTM algebra standard, although the mathematical level is much lower than that covered in the Singapore texts. Generalizations and abstractions of concepts discovered and learned, which could have been easily included in the curricula, are mostly absent in the American texts [Connected Math & MIC]. It appears that this may be done deliberately in the authors' attempt to offer easily visualizable problems . . .

As for fractional exponents, you'll never run into one at the grocery store, so it's probably best to skip that as well:

There is no discussion of negative and fractional exponents except when students explore exponential functions using graphing calculators. As a result, students miss an oportunity to revisit square roots and cube roots...CMP [Connected Math] misses the opportunity to discuss the quadratic formula or the process of completing the square.

Remember, the NCTM folks who designed these weak standards aren't scientists or engineers, thus they can see no need to actually multiply an exponent by an exponent:

However, multiplying polynomials that are higher than the first order [for example, x²] is not covered in the entire [Connected Math] curriculum. This could be because it is difficult to come up with a context for multiplying an area by an area, or it could be the result of a decision [by Connected Math's authors] that the topic is non-essential to a middle school student since it is not explicitly called for by the NCTM Standards. In either case, it is an omission which requires attention for students who wish to be on an accelerated track in high school . . .

Again, our gifted kids are given the shaft.

Similarly, the division of a polynomial by another polynomial of lower order is not covered, probably because it would have required conceptual understanding of long division at a level not covered by the [Connected Math] curricula . . .

Understanding long division? Oh no, not that waste of time from elementary school! Too bad the NCTM folks 'taught' all our elementary school students 'how' to do long division using a calculator.

The Algebra level in CMP and MIC appear to be almost two grade levels lower than in the Singapore materials. Division of one polynomial by another or multipling two polynomials of order higher than one is not taught even by the 8th grade in these American curricula.

No polynomials in the grocery store, either.

Basic Skills versus Conceptual Development
Does it have to be a battle?

We feel that CMP's overwhelming emphasis on conceptual development neglects standard computational methods and techniques. In our opinion, concepts and computations often positively reinforce one another . . . there is a danger here of producing students with conceptual understanding but limited computational skills.

Emphasis ours. Hmm . . . understanding but few skills. Kind of like Howard Cosell giving blow-by-blow commentary on a Cassius Clay fight. Just don't ask Howard to step in the ring.

And here's some more "sacrifice the student" rhetoric:

CMP admits that "because the curriculum does not emphasize arithmetic computations done by hand, some CMP students may not do as well on parts of the standardized tests assessing computational skills as students in classes that spend most of their time practicing such skills." This statement implies that we [as math teachers] have still not achieved a balance between teaching fundamental ideas and computational methods.

That's a very popular myth, that we need NCTM and their ilk to help give us balance, when in reality we were doing quite nicely without them for ages. The 'need' for balance shouldn't outweigh the need to teach basic skills.

Onward and Upward?
How does CMP bode for the future study of math? Here's a jaw-dropper:

It is our prediction that students wishing to take calculus before the end of the 12th grade year [or college] are likely not to be on track to do so after completing 8th grade CMP . . .

Need we mention that CMP isn't some special "slow-track" program which is intended for kids not college-bound (which nonetheless would be offensive, being that we're talking about middle school). No, CMP is designed to be used by all middle school kids.

We sure hope none of these kids was hoping for a career in science or engineering, for college-freshman calculus is nearly impossible for those who haven't had it in high school.

As mathematicians and applied mathematicians, we feel that a major shortcoming of [CMP and MIC], ironically, is that they adhered to the 1989 NCTM Curriculum Standards too literally at the expense of the level of the mathematics taught and the mathematical proficiency of the students.

Something is definitely wrong when a group of mathematicians calls it a shortcoming to have adhered too closely to NCTM standards.

A Plan of Action
Our advice is simple: if you're interested in your students really learning math, then stay away from the NCTM and any math program derived from their standards. Rather, the best course of action would be to look up the schools currently doing quite well by their students, and ask them how they're doing it.

Learn from their experience, not the NCTM's theories.

Connected Mathematics Program: What 3 'supportive' studies say

June 19, 2004 Last time we wrote how one Milwaukee school board is trying to increase math achievement by using the Connected Mathematics Program (CMP). This is yet another fuzzy-math program based on an unfortunate set of standards that places problem solving and the discovery approach on such high pedestals that little real teaching and learning can take place.

We think the CMP logo (right) is fitting: sending groups of children in circles, with no end in sight.

What is especially interesting about CMP is the evidence they cite on their own website.

One page called Curriculum Reviews examines three different evaluations. Two of the reviews had glowing praise for CMP, but when we examined their evaluation criteria, we found little more than gobbledygook. Only the third review seemed to be interested in any kind of mathematical rigor, and their conclusions were very interesting, as we'll see.

Math and Science Expert Panel
The 1999 Mathematics and Science Expert Panel for the U.S. Department of Education named CMP an "exemplary" program. However, upon examining their criteria we found seven categories (with a total of thirty-three sub-indicators) focused on all sorts of high-sounding rhetoric including goals, alignment, engagement, and even societal needs.

Only the eighth criterion ("Makes a difference in student learning") was interested in whether the program actually works, and in this criterion the evidence required was weak: publishers could turn in just about any evidence of gains for validation. For example, if students improved only one-half grade level in an entire year of instruction, but their gains were not only in their understanding of math but their problem-solving skills, then that program would become eligible to be named "exemplary."

With "makes a difference" listed last among the eight criteria, it is clear just how highly the Expert Panel regarded it.

While it is true that the Expert Panel named CMP "exemplary," we think it is mainly because of a rigged definition. (Read how a similar group redefined the word effective.)

Project 2061
In 1999, Project 2061 of the American Association for the Advancement of Science examined several middle school math programs, giving CMP "the highest ranking by quality instruction in student and teacher editions, and most or partial content ranking on selected content benchmarks." (Whatever that means.)

However when we examined their methodology, we found more rhetoric.

Project 2061 breaks down their criteria into seven categories and a total of 24 sub-criteria. They have a lot to say about "connecting benchmark ideas" and "promoting student thinking" and "guiding interpretation" and "the mathematics environment." They have little to say about practice, as in students actually doing math problems. Only two of their twenty-four criteria mentions this incredibly important aspect of learning math.

Given their focus on all things wishy-washy, we have little faith in their recommendation of CMP.

On a side note, one math program which we know first-hand to be extremely effective (partly because their problem sets seem engineered, they're so well written) is the Saxon series. One look at Saxon, and the Project 2061 folks punted:

Although we analyzed [Saxon] Math 65, Math 76, Math 87 (Saxon Publishers, Inc., 1997, 1995), this series' philosophy, organization, and format . . . were not well suited to our evaluation.

University of Washington
A group of math professors from the University of Washington examined three middle school math programs, including CMP, Math in Context, and Singapore Math, and they have some rather damning statements about CMP.

What we find delicious is that the CMP folks cite the study anyway, quoting the following section without a hint of irony:

They (Connected Mathematics Program and Mathematics in Context) represent the new thrust in American mathematical education of inquiry-based, discovery-based and student-centered learning.

They mean this as an insult. Math instruction has been going down the drain in the U.S. because of these "new thrusts." The reason? "Inquiry-based, discovery-based and student-centered learning" are replacing direct instruction and problem sets where students actually practice doing math.

The American curricula strive to produce independent thinkers who can analyze problems, select appropriate tools to solve them and achieve conceptual understanding of the mathematics behind the algorithms, usually through a real-world context.

The key word here is "strive." Sure, Americans strive to have all these wonderful things happen, but the approach is all wrong. In the end, rigorous analysis, problem solving, and conceptual understanding happen best in traditional, teacher-based classrooms.

Singapore mathematics, on the other hand, is more traditional in orientation and emphasizes the acquisition of proficiency in mathematical skills and teacher-directed learning. . .

The CMP folks didn't notice the authors meant this as a compliment to the Singapore program. They also fail to note that no nation's children perform as well as Singapore youngsters in math. None.

When compared with the 2000 NCTM Principles and Standards, the Singapore curriculum scores lower than the two American texts.

Exactly! The NCTM standards have removed a great deal of math from the study of mathematics, and CMP was designed with precisely these NCTM standards in mind. Of course they'll do well on any evaluation that ranks them according to how well they follow the party line!

'Supportive' indeed
If this is part of the evidence that the Connected Mathematics Program staff cite in support of their program, we'd like to know why people (such as the good folks in Germantown) continue to regard it, and programs like it, as being part of the solution to their math woes.

Stay tuned, and next time we'll pull some actual quotes from the University of Washington study to help show just how bad CMP really is (and by proxy, how low the NCTM standards are).

Predictable Results from a New New Math Program

June 17, 2004 Theory over Practice is one of the most pernicious aspects of most failed education reform efforts. We've said it before, but it bears repeating:

If someone wanted to learn how to grow corn in Iowa, or build a bridge over a windy channel, or navigate a corporation through the waters of Chapter 11, or design a really absorbent diaper . . . the first step would be to speak to the people who've been successful at those very things!

This should be painfully obvious to anyone outside the Education field.

But we educators are special. We know better than to learn from history, or if we do look at history, it is only through a fun-house mirror, which gets things backwards, but makes us feel good about what we're doing to our hapless students.

Kids failing at reading? We should find out what the theorists say about that. Students unable to do basic math? Let's use a newfangled program based on the latest theories!

Rarely do you see the approach that works for the rest of the world, which is to ask the folks currently enjoying success how they're doing it. Most people are more than happy to share.

Thus we have this story from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

Alarmed by what they consider low scores on state achievement tests, Germantown School Board members are pushing district administrators for answers and action.

Now their most recent scores aren't terrible--77% of their eighth graders are proficient in math--but their scores have dropped over ten points from this time last year.

This might lead one to ask what they did differently in the past year.

The district also began a math program at the middle school this year that uses a different method of instruction. The program, known as Connected Math, uses more hands-on activities than traditional programs and emphasizes problem-solving over rote memorization of facts and formulas.

While we see a smoking gun, Germantown officials see the solution to their math problems.

We are not making this up.

Connected Mathematics is yet another in a long line of math programs that was based not upon what's been proven to work in the classroom, but on wonderful theories. These come from the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM), sponsored by the theory-philic National Science Foundation, which has shown an alarming tendancy to not know anything about teaching math. (Next time, we'll explore a little of what is so bad about Connected Mathematics and programs like it.)

Time after time, NCTM-based programs have been measured and found lacking in comparison with more rigorous, time-tested, and proven-effective ones, such as Singapore Math or Saxon Math.

And time after time, these NCTM programs are the first things suggested when someone starts banging the "we need to raise our math scores" drum, as in the Germantown story above.

When will we learn?

The 10 Percent Solution: 'Diversity' trumps Academic Preparation

June 16, 2004 Recently both Joanne Jacobs and Kimberly Swygert have weighed in on the topic of the "talented tenth."

Seems in Texas (and California and Florida) the powers-that-be decided to have a race-neutral university admissions policy--designed to nonetheless improve 'Diversity'--by accepting the top 10% of any high school class in the state, regardless of rigor.

While some folks say it's a success ('Diversity' is achieved), others say deserving students are shut out. Top-tier students in highly competitive schools, who are in the top quartile (but not the top decile) of their class, are effectively outranked by students with lesser qualifications who graduate at the top of their class at less competetive high schools.

We think the plan stinks.

Our objections are twofold: we oppose it on principle and in practice.

Flawed in Principle
As a matter of principle, we don't like to see the push for capital-d 'Diversity' affect any policy decision. Exactly what is 'Diversity' and why is it more important than more valid measures of academic preparation? Try as they might, the critics have failed to find any racial bias in standardized tests such as the SAT or the ACT or AP exams.

Yet none of these reliable measures matter when all one needs to do is look at class rank, which is a nice local metric, but meaningless as soon as you step outside the high school's front door. It is quite possible--and in our experience, likely--that the bottom-of-the-barrel of one elite school's graduating class bests the valedictorian at a lousy one.

It's a classic case of comparing apples to oranges. Even though we're comparing "Grade-A Fancy" apples to "Florida's Best" oranges, it makes the comparison no more valid.

Doomed to Fail in Practice
In the practical sense, we have intimate experience a number of lower-performing schools. Hypothetically, the top ten percent of students from these schools would be welcomed into the state university with open arms, even though I wonder about their chances in Community College, let alone a school like the University of Texas at Austin.

Why our pessimism? Simple, we just looked at how few students are considered "proficient" in math and reading. At one particular school, two percent were considered proficient in math in the latest round of testing.

Yes, that's two, as in "the integer less than three." Might we point out that two is a single digit number? Which means, in this case, that an additional eight percent would be welcomed into the university system, no questions asked?

And these students would be whisked away to compete on a "level playing field" with the best of the best from schools like Texas's equivalent of Groton or Exeter. Meanwhile, back at Groton and Exeter, the hapless schlubs only at the 89 percentile have been turned away.

The Bottom Line
The push for 'Diversity' which neglects valid measures of academic preparation is not only unfair to legitimately-qualified students, but it also dooms other artificially-boosted students to a grim "educational" experience (namely, failing out of a really good school).

This second group of students is most certainly largely made of blacks and hispanics, who get shafted (yet again) by the well-meaning plans of the annointed.

The role of Expulsion

June 14, 2004 Expulsion--or exclusion, as it's called in some parts--plays a very important role in the management of a K-12 school, but is a misunderstood concept.

The old-fashioned meaning of expulsion was simple: do something bad enough and you'll be kicked out of school for a year, if not permanently.

But today, there is much hand-wringing over the subject, such that some schools voluntarily don't expel children ("where are the poor dears to go if we throw them out on the street?") whereas other schools have been warned by their legal counsel not to do it to avoid lawsuits.

And while some schools have unreasonable zero-tolerance policies (which we explained earlier), here we'll focus on more sane--if misguided--policies on expulsion.

This week we learn from Brian Micklethwait that "Leicestershire schools to be fined for excluding a child." The proposal comes from city and school bureaucrats, and would not only force a school which excludes (expels) a student to pay back the money it received to educate him, but it will also be fined up to £10,000 per child (about $18,000).

If a school receives tuition in a lump sum at the start of the school year to educate a child, and then kicks that child out midyear, it seems reasonable for the school to refund the remaining tuition, pro-rated. No harm, no foul. But to fine a school such a large amount essentially amounts to a ban on expulsion.

Brian writes:

[If teachers] are forbidden to expel or exclude, they are simply at the mercy of any pupil . . . or consortium of pupils which decides to misbehave, as are all the pupils at the school who actually want to do some learning.

Teachers and students "at the mercy" of miscreants is a common theme in schools where discipline has gone wayward, and this plan is clearly a recipe for disaster.

Early in our school career we taught in a poorly-run inner-city middle school, where chaos was the plan of the day. One day a child set fire to a desk in the art room (while art class was in session!) and fortunately no one was hurt, for it could have quickly turned ugly, with all the paper and dry combustibles. District policy stated the child be expelled for one year, for it was a clear case of arson.

The school's response? The principal gave the kid a one-week vacation suspension, after which he returned to class as if nothing happened. But something had happened, and everyone knew it.

Thus the child's pose upon returning to that same art room was a triumphant swagger, both fists raised high. He'd clearly won.

Obligation to Not Expel
The Leicestershire bureaucrats probably aren't bad people, but they clearly don't understand the role of expulsion in maintaining school discipline.

So why do school officials decide to stop expelling students? It all stems from a misguided sense of obligation.

In Leicestershire, leaders express concern that "the money has to come from somewhere" to educate expelled children. In other words, even though a student chose to behave so intolerably so as to be kicked out of the local school district, they're still feeling obliged to service that child!

It's yet another failing of the socialist mentality: to treat everyone as wards of the state.

What will soon happen if the Leicestershire plan is approved is that students will behave more and more egregiously. It doesn't take kids long to figure out when there are no limits on their behavior. If anything goes, you can be sure anything will.

Voluntary Moratorium
The edict to not expel children doesn't have to come from above, sometimes it comes from within.

We've worked at a number of charter schools in Philadelphia where the prevailing attitude was "we can't just put this child out, for where will he go?" Believe it or not, sometimes these sentiments were expressed in front of the student. Thus Rotten Johnny continues his rotten ways, for he knows there are officially no limits to his actions.

It then becomes open season on the endangered species known as "civil classroom decorum."

The Myth of the Trivial Expulsion
There's another misunderstood aspect of expelling children from school. Some folks (especially critics of vouchers) hold the view that the schools that do expel (such as private schools and well-run public schools) boot out students willy-nilly, for little or no reason at all.

This is patently false.

Just because a school has expulsion in its bag of tricks for use when disciplining children doesn't mean that it is used frequently, or even at all. A few months ago we wrote of "The Ladder" for dealing with serious school misbehavior. In the case of the 5-step ladder, if a student continues to disrupt the learning environment in nontrivial ways, that student moves up the ladder, step by step. Each step has a new consequence, but the fifth and final step is expulsion.

Some folks think that a school using this ladder would be expelling children right and left, but they're forgetting one important aspect of school discipline: the choices made by the individual child.

Expulsion Done Right
In a school that responsibly uses expulsion, students quickly figure out that they can't play the system for long, or they'll be out of the system entirely. Sure, a kid may continue to test his boundaries (which is only natural), but when faced with the prospect of being expelled for continued serious misconduct, most children change their behavior.

A subtle example of schools using expulsion effectively is the KIPP academies. KIPP schools are open-enrollment public schools (in other words, they can't choose their student body) and most are in "distressed" urban neighborhoods. They're famous for having incredible success--both academically and behaviorally--with their young charges.

Yet they rarely expel students.

Just because they rarely expel, doesn't mean that it isn't an option. You can bet that it's on the table when having a serious conversation with a severely-misbehaving child and his family. From the track record of KIPP schools, they seem to be so well run (and level-headed in terms of discipline) they clearly encourage children to behave at their best, so there is little need for expulsion to take place.

The Big Picture
Ultimately school discipline is about two things: maintaining a civil environment where learning can flourish, and encouraging students to accept responsibility for their behavior--which leads directly to students behaving ever more responsibly.

The bottom line is that schools must have some sort of authority over students--whether it chooses to exercise it or not--otherwise the students will ultimately be in charge.

And that's no way to run a school.

Arithmetic versus Problem Solving

June 12, 2004 Last time, we wrote about the false dichotomies which Progressive education reformers use in their fight against "old fashioned" methods of teaching basic skills.

We'll fisk a bit of exposition from Tim Stahmer's Assorted Stuff:

There’s a trend among some critics of public instruction to try and push creativity out of the teaching of reading and math.

He's misreading us critics. We don't want there to be no creativity, we'd rather not have creativity displace actual facts and skills.

Especially in math, they want students to drill on the mechanics, learning the step by step algorithms . . .

Whoa. He doesn't want students to know the mechanics of math? No algorithms?

. . . so that students can recall them for the standardized problems on the next "big test".

Ah, he said it. Those evil standardized tests.

What he doesn't consider is the simple fact that kids might have to know these algorithms in order to go deeper with the study of math in future years.     

As a result, most students are taught the "one right answer and one way to get there" approach to math . . .

He says it like it's a bad thing. In a "hard science" field like Math (unlike soft subjects like Social Studies or English) there are, in fact, absolutes.

. . . and miss out on the creative aspects of problem solving inherent in the subject.

He's all too willing to sacrifice children on the altar of creativity. One of the joyful aspects of studying Mathematics is that there may be any of a number of approaches to a given problem, but that there may be only one right answer!

There is a great deal of creativity inherent in the mental approaches to really good math problems, even if it turns out that there's only one right answer. But what makes his criticism of "the one right answer and one way to get there approach" so pernicious is that it contains a grain of truth.

True, in the vast majority of primary-level math problems, there is one right answer, and true, students are taught "one way to get there." (For example, using the standard long division algorithm we examined two months ago, even though there are several good algorithms for doing it.)

But it is absolutely false that students are taught that there is only one way to get there.

In any field of specialty on the planet, if an experienced elder wants to teach a novice a new skill, something the newbie's never done before, the best way to do it is to teach one tried-and-true method, a step-by-step routine that's guaranteed to get the person to the desired end.

It could be the proper way to hoe a row of soil for planting seeds, the right way to hold a football when running through blockers, applying mortar to a brick when building a chimney, or converting an improper fraction to a mixed number.

But the worst way to do it is to try to fill the novice's head with the multiple ways of doing it--methods in which the elder is well versed. If the elder does her job correctly, the "newbie" will gain knowledge and skills, and in time will have the foundation for exploring other avenues.

The foundation comes before the skyscraper.

False Dichotomies of Education Reform: Reading and Math

June 10, 2004 One common weapon in education reform as wielded by Progressives is the false dichotomy. Time after time they'll propose a solution to a "problem" which involves the choosing between two seemingly opposite methods, as if they were mutually exclusive absolutes.

It plays out like this: An 'old' method is examined and found lacking. A 'new' method is proffered which is clearly superior. Progressives then advocate replacing the 'old' with the 'new.'

When one takes off the blinders, what one sees is that both methods were always traditionally used very effectively. Often what is described as 'old' is simply instruction at the basic-skills level, and the method dubbed 'new' is (and was) traditionally used to hone and refine those skills and take them to more advanced levels.

Thus, what Progressives propose is eliminating effective methods for acquiring basic skills, and to try to skip straight to the good parts, to the fun, to the creative, to the advanced.

A noble effort, to be sure, but students then lack basic skills.

Reading: In the teaching of reading, the most effective way to do it is to explicitly teach each and every one of the 42 phonemes in the language, and to work your way through all 250 spellings of these 42 sounds, steadily over the course of Kindergarten through Fourth Grade. At the same time you're reinforcing the acquisition of new sounds and spellings by using literature, such as the McGuffey's Readers of olden days.

At the kindergarten level, you're teaching the sounds of the alphabet and using very simple words like consonant-vowel-consonant combinations (Dog, Cat, Man, Cow). There's a McGuffey's reader at the Kindergarten level for kids to begin to learn to read. Each and every year thereafter, the phonics goes deeper, and the literature gets richer.

Side by side, literature and phonics cooperate to teach kids to read.

Progressives, in their push for "Whole Language" and the slightly reworded version called "Balanced Literacy" aim to replace the teaching of phonics with the teaching of literature.

Math: In the teaching of math, the most effective way to do it is to explicitly teach the number facts and drill them to the point of automaticity. These number facts include addition, subtraction, multiplication and division, later moving up to things like the manipulation of fractions, decimals, percents, proportions and square roots, just to mention a few basic skills. At the same time you're reinforcing the acquisition of these number-sense skills by using problem solving, such as applying arithmetic to real world problems.

When teaching addition, you have three apples, and get two more, for a total of five apples. When teaching mulitplication, you have four boxes of toys, each box contains eight toys, for a product of 32 toys. Each time a new math skill is taught, there are usually a bunch of good problems to sink one's teeth into. For example, when teaching square roots, it's a perfect time to teach finding the missing side of a right triangle using the Pythagorean theorm. And on and on.

Side by side, problem solving and arithmetic cooperate to teach kids how to do math.

Progressives, in their push for "New-New Math" and the official-sounding version called the "NCTM Standards" aim to replace the teaching of arithmetic with the teaching of problem solving.

Do we sound like a broken record?

The acquisition of skills is not, and never has been, an either-or proposition.

Teach For America validated

June 09, 2004 Via Eduwonk.com comes a story on a study examining the performance of Teach For America in a number of mostly urban schools.

Teach For America places recent college graduates in classrooms in public schools around the country, especially in high-need areas, even though these folks aren't "certified" to teach. Eduwonk writes:

The study -- examining TFA teachers in six regions (Chicago, Los Angeles, Houston, New Orleans, and the Mississippi Delta region) used random assignment to gather data from 17 schools, 100 classrooms, and about 2000 students -- found that TFA teachers were as effective as the general population of teachers in these districts in teaching reading and more effective in teaching math.

(Emphasis in the original.) We're pleased that folks who have little or no training in any "School of Education"--but who, in fact, know something about a real subject--can hold their own in comparison to mostly certified teachers. We're especially pleased that these new teachers haven't been through the two years of brainwashing into progressive techniques and philosophy, but rather, cut their teeth in the real world of the classroom.

Can someone explain to us what role "teacher certification" holds if non-certified teachers can do just as well, if not better? Any professional with the guts and the desire to want to become a teacher should have the freedom to teach. The certification requirement is an artificial obstacle.

Tear down this wall!

The British standard in Ethiopia

June 08, 2004 A personal story:

I've been haunting the construction site of the forthcoming Cira Center, where the best vantage point is from a newly-completed 10-level parking garage bordering the future skyscraper. Just so they don't think I'm yet another suspicious character, I've made friends with the staff that works at the garage, and most are from Africa: Sierra Leone, Liberia and Nigeria are all represented.

Today I noticed a regular parking attendant studying chemistry and struck up a conversation. Turns out she's a recent high school graduate and is now a freshman at Temple University, studying to become a pharmacist. Being a high school teacher, I asked her where she went to high school, and she said, "Oh, I'm not from here." Turns out she's Ethiopian, and has only been in America since the 11th grade.

I asked her how she liked it here in this country, and she looked a little hesitant before answering.

"School here is so easy," she began. "I never used to get A's in math, but here I got nothing but straight A's because it was so easy. In Ethiopia we were educated under the British standard."

Ah, the British standard.

People are fond of talking about how dreadful "colonialism" was, especially under the British Empire, but much can be said for the progeny of the lands where this colonialism took root. (Clarification: Reader Jeffrey Boulier reminds us that Ethiopia itself was never a British colony, but they surely had a great deal of influence there.)

"Two Cheers for Colonialism" says Dinesh D'Souza, himself an Indian-turned-American who has a great deal of insight into there versus here, and sheds assumption-bursting light upon the whole question of the legacy of colonialism, being that India was so long a part of the British Empire. (Speaking of there versus here, we've quoted in full D'Souza's Ten Great Things About America.)

D'Souza argues that while colonialism was brutal for the people subjugated under foreign rule, the British imported concepts previously unheard of on the subcontinent, such as "freedom of expression, in self-government, in equality of rights under the law, and in the universal principle of human dignity."

He doesn't say the British did this out of any sense of altruism, but for their own best interests. Thus when they needed infrastructure they built roads, railways and ports, and when they needed to resolve disputes they installed courts of law (complete with the novel concept of "innocent until proven guilty").

The British also had to educate the Indians, in order to communicate with them and to train them to be civil servants in the empire. Thus Indian children were exposed to Shakespeare, Dickens, Hobbes, and Locke. In that way the Indians began to encounter words and ideas that were unmentioned in their ancestral culture: "liberty," "sovereignty," "rights," and so on.

That brings me to the greatest benefit that the British provided to the Indians: They taught them the language of freedom.

Which brings us to America, arguably the freest nation on earth. No one is teaching us the language of freedom, no one is imposing higher standards of education on our children from a faraway monarchy, no one is exposing us to expanded horizons.

So why are we shooting ourselves in the foot, educationally speaking? Why are we practicing what we call Educational Unilateral Disarmament on our children, gutting former rigorous standards, and even completely forgetting in many cases how to effectively educate children?

The British Empire is long gone from Africa, yet in the year 2004 there's good reason why many are still using the British standard in education.

They haven't forgotten.

"The results have been impressive. They have also been ignored."

June 08, 2004 Joanne Jacobs mentioned a story on Balanced Literacy today that's really gotten us steamed.

Seems a public elementary school in Madison, WI, has resisted its school district's push for the mediocre Balanced Literacy program, and instead has been teaching reading using Direct Instruction, a method which uses explicit phonics.

There are two noteworthy results:

The kids--especially the black kids--are soaring.

And Madison school district administrators couldn't care less.

Actually they do care. They care that Direct Instruction flies in the face of their cherished theories of "language acquisition through literature" so much that they're forcing Lapham Elementary to abandon Direct Instruction for the officially-sanctioned fuzzy-wuzzy Balanced Literacy.

That'll show 'em.

Katherine Esposito's article in Isthmus positively nails a number of aspects of the reading wars, and is well worth the read. A few points to note:

• Lapham (whose students continue at Marquette Elementary) switched from Balanced Literacy to Direct Instruction five years ago.
• In that time, the percentage of black 3rd graders considered "advanced" has increased 300%.
• The district average for advanced black 3rd graders remains where Marquette was 5 years ago.
• All the school's 3rd graders rank a close second in the entire city.
• Did we mention they're being forced to revert back to Balanced Literacy?

Elements of the story comprise a comedy of errors, but unfortunately no one's laughing. For example, take Reading Recovery, a fabulously expensive program for struggling early readers. (We discussed Reading Recovery in a post this past January.)

• The Madison school district has a budget deficit of almost $10 million.
• Reading Recovery cost $1.3 million in a recent school year, at a cool $4,000 per student.
• For this price they could have paid the entire tuition at any of a number of private schools, which seem not to have forgotten how to teach Phonics.
• Half of the students served by Reading Recovery failed the program and require more assistance.
• A consulting firm (hired specifically during one budget crisis) recommended eliminating or trimming Reading Recovery, noting "It is the highest-cost literacy program."
• Reading Recovery has been retained in the district. (Sigh.)

In Esposito's article we found one of our pet theories on Special Education validated. We've long felt that the expanding numbers of children labeled "Special Ed" haven't been because of an increasing problem with the development of children, but rather because of our collective amnesia on how to effectively teach reading.

Fall down on the job of teaching reading and you run the risk that the kid won't pick it up on his own. When that happens (and it does, a lot), then that child will be handicapped in every class that involves reading (which is most of them), leading to a near-certain designation in any of a number of Special Educations categories, most notoriously, "Learning Disabled."

What if these kids were simply taught to read properly in the first place?

Of course we will always have a percentage of Special Education children, but it probably won't be the epidemic we have today. This epidemic has hit minorities the hardest, possibly because these kids need explicit phonics instruction even more than white children, for any of a number of reasons.

Esposito writes of Sara Obern, a Special Education teacher who used Direct Instruction in daily 20-minute doses with a group of students behind in reading. In one year, all seven of her "Learning Disabled" students (all of whom were black) increased two grade levels in reading, enough to lose the LD designation!

"It made me so angry just having those kids and realizing, 'They're not disabled!'" [Obern] says now. "They're saying this kid is failing because there's something wrong with this kid. But if I can have him come up two years in one year, there's nothing wrong with that kid."

Meanwhile a jaw-dropping third of all black students in Madison are labeled "Special Education."

If only they were properly taught to read.

Readers may wonder what exactly is so bad about Balanced Literacy, for after all, it does sound like a reasonable approach: taking "a balance of the best of phonics and Whole Language."

In his "Educators vs. Reading" essay from Campus Report Online, Onkar Ghate writes:

Unfortunately, the dominant view among educators is that because "reading is such a complex and multifaceted activity," in the words of Dr. Catherine Snow, professor of education at Harvard, "no single method is the answer." This is like saying that because eating is "such a complex and multifaceted activity," no single principle can guide us, and that a proper diet must therefore contain a mixture of food and poison.

It's rewarding that he'd use the poison analogy, for it is one we've championed anytime we try to explain how Balanced Literacy isn't a benign "balance" but rather harmful to our children. For starters, Whole Language teaches that guesswork is a perfectly acceptable strategy to use when encountering an unknown word (after looking at the first letter, in a sop to the phonics crowd). Whole Language, in its love affair with literature, expends much effort in getting kids to figure out the meaning of text without actually sounding out words phonetically.

Whole Language (and Balanced Literacy) proponents say things like, "We used to say 'sound it out' now we say 'figure it out.' "

Unfortunately, this approach sacrifices not only the author's subtlety and imagination, but just about every proper noun you could think of. (When's the last time you saw a picture of "Thursday"?) And when encountering an unfamiliar character name in a story, say "Hermione Granger" the kids are actually told to substitute a more familiar name, say "Halle Berry" and use that name anytime it comes up in the story!

And this is supposed to be reading? No, it's Balanced Literacy.

Veteran teacher Sara Obern isn't fooled about this "balance," as Esposito reports:

"Balanced Literacy means you use a mixture of Whole Language and phonics," she says, a touch of cynicism in her voice. "Yes, you surround the kids with good books. Yes, you read out loud to them. Yes, you use many different approaches. Except -- let's guess. Which one?"

The one that works, naturally.