Who's Heading the Race to the Top Consortium?
That would be former SPS staffer Jessica de Barros. Sigh.
Tuesday Open Thread
The speaker list is up for the Board meeting tomorrow; not as packed as I thought with just four people on the waitlist. The majority of the speakers are speaking on high school boundaries (with several wanting to talk about Ballard High). There are only three of us speaking about the Green Dot resolution asking the City to not grant the zoning departures that Green Dot has requested. It's me, long-time watchdog, Chris Jackins, and the head of the Washington State Charter Schools Association, Patrick D'Amelio. (I knew Mr. D'Amelio when he headed the Alliance for Education and Big Brothers and Big Sisters; he's a stand-up guy.)
Comments
This group of school districts (and many other partner organizations, unions, mayors, community agencies, housing authorities, educators, and parents) actively work together as part of a Collective Impact effort that FSG helped to design and launch.
(Another "Our Schools Coalition" style effort?)
Gates is an FSG funder.
DeBarros was also trained by the Broad Foundation.
Yet they talk about loyalty and commitment at their EduDrinks parties. (I kid you not, it's a club).
Probably just the booze talking.
WSDWG
How many are classroom teachers?
-- Dan Dempsey
HERE is a LINK to the Los Angeles Partnership.
Interesting is that former WS High School principal Bruce Bivins is the principal of one of the small schools at Roosevelt in LA.
-- Dan Dempsey
It would seem that since de Barros was hired by the consortium that they probably like this model.
I wonder if they did much analysis on the results achieved by the Partnership....
Keep in mind the SPS has been abysmal in performing accurate analyses of many academic changes.
-- like Everyday Math
-- Like New Tech Network Schools
-- Like HS Discovery Math adoption
-- Like Writers and Readers workshops.
etc. etc.
I hope the LA Partnership has produced positive academic results.
-- Dan Dempsey
Dan,
Who are the folks pushing Discovery Math? There must be some big bucks behind this math program.
Key Curriculum Press was publishing both
#1 IMP (Interactive Math Program) (used at Cleveland and garfield for three years via an NSF grant for "Professional Development" and
#2 the Discovering High School series.
Key Press has now decided to not publish any more math books.
It sold "Discovering" to Hart publishing and has been unable to find a buyer for IMP.
======
The NSF/EHR division has put 100 million + dollars into "Reform Math" programs.
Results do not matter as this is the "in crowd" politically correct agenda.
This is a part of USA education insanity. Constructivist "more hands on" activity centered math programs are loved by administration ... why?
Because the USA is the only developed nation that pushes "one size fits all" through high school.... some states are now requiring for high school graduation => one year algebra, one year geometry, one year advanced algebra, and on class above advanced algebra.
Social promotion into and through such advanced math courses degrades the quality of such classes.
============
The math situation is unlikely to improve much... because of CCSS.
The Common Core State Standards have many content standards that are OK.... BUT there are 8 standards for Mathematical Practice which are being used to continue the "same nonsense" that has NOT worked for at least the last two decades.
The WA legislators approved CCSS before they were even written.... it was all about the hope of Fed $$$$ and zero about thoughtful analysis.
Randy Dorn was required to submit a CCSS impact report to the Legislators on or before Jan 1, 2011 , which he failed to do.
Nobody cares about legal requirements and certainly not the legislators that write the laws one year and ignore them the next session.
Gates was the original CCSS funder and that is apparently all that is important,
-- Dan Dempsey
But CCSS is taking up large swaths of Pro Dev in schools district-wide.
The bit of CCSS that always cracks me up is this (from the CCSS FAQ sheet, but also in the standards themselves):
"The Standards require certain critical content for all students, including: classic myths and stories from around the world, America’s Founding Documents, foundational American literature, and Shakespeare."
As long as they managed to squeeze Shakespeare in there, I guess they're rigorous and exhaustive, right? Ol' Bill would no doubt be pleased.
So teachers are using valuable PD time to learn not only CCSS but also LDC. And the new PowerTeacher grading system. And the new Fusion. And the new this, that, and the other thing. Instead of, you know, collaborating? Like everyone wants them to do, and which is a danged good idea?
LDC, word has it, will NOT be "required," but hey, they bought it, principals will no doubt be looking for it (as they are looking for CCSS standards in lesson planning now), so....
Word has it that the LDC program merely packages simplistic teaching strategies and also requires time-sucking effort on planning every little detail of every little minute of lesson, connecting each to every little nuance of every little strand and target of CCSS. In addition, I suppose, to the teacher's own lesson planning. Or maybe in lieu of it? Ka-ching! Expensive dumbing down of curriculum that is more labor intensive!
Unless you can get TFAers to do it for cheap for a couple of years, sweating into the night because, you know, they're so damned dedicated and all.
And here I was told the district was investing big $$ in PD to show general education teachers how to work with their ELL and special education students. I'm sure that's another goose-egg. Shakespeare's more important than actually mastering math and graduating HS.
Need to Know
But corrupt? I hope not.