Michelle Malkin is wrong about the Common Core - Part 1

Part 1.

Michelle Malkin is posting articles promulgating inaccurate and irresponsible information about the "Common Core". I have excerpted her information in the indented sections. Below each section are my comments.  Her comments are from the article found here.

For decades, collectivist agitators in our schools have chipped away at academic excellence in the name of fairness, diversity and social justice. “Progressive” reformers denounced Western civilization requirements, the Founding Fathers and the Great Books as racist. They attacked traditional grammar classes as irrelevant in modern life. They deemed ability grouping of students (tracking) bad for self-esteem. They replaced time-tested rote techniques and standard algorithms with fuzzy math, inventive spelling and multicultural claptrap.

Under President Obama, these top-down mal-formers — empowered by Washington education bureaucrats and backed by misguided liberal philanthropists led by billionaire Bill Gates — are now presiding over a radical makeover of your children’s school curriculum. It’s being done in the name of federal “Common Core” standards that do anything but raise achievement standards.

Michelle doesn't understand the difference between standards and curriculum. Think of ends vs. means. The standards are the ends, the curriculum is the means. Standards determine what kids should have learned after they have studied. The curriculum is the method by which they study.  The Common Core Standards do not determine what text books your child will use or how they will be taught. The same standards could be taught using the Great books or they could be taught using the progressive claptrap Michelle eschews.

For example: CCSS.Math.Content.4.OA.A.1 Interpret a multiplication equation as a comparison, e.g., interpret 35 = 5 × 7 as a statement that 35 is 5 times as many as 7 and 7 times as many as 5. Represent verbal statements of multiplicative comparisons as multiplication equations.

This standard could be taught by any number of methods or texts. No text or method is prescribed or proscribed by this standard, it only states that at the end of 4th grade, students should be able to understand that when we multiply, we are multiplying groups of things a specific number of times.

Common Core was enabled by Obama’s federal stimulus law and his Department of Education’s “Race to the Top” gimmickry. The administration bribed cash-starved states into adopting unseen instructional standards as a condition of winning billions of dollars in grants. Even states that lost their bids for Race to the Top money were required to commit to a dumbed-down and amorphous curricular “alignment.”

The Race to the Top grant is a competitive grant and states don't have to apply. If they do apply, there is no reason to believe they will receive the money. The Race to the Top grant does not require states to use the "Common Core" standards, only that states involved in a consortium should develop some common standards and that the schools who participate should comply with them. Again, many states didn't participate in this program. No one was required to adopt the "Common Core" even if they won. They could have adopted their own standards.

In practice, Common Core’s dubious “college- and career”-ready standards undermine local control of education, usurp state autonomy over curricular materials, and foist untested, mediocre and incoherent pedagogical theories on America’s schoolchildren.

States can adopt the "Common Core" or not, as they chose. Also, the "Common Core" doesn't require any specific curriculum. The "Common Core" does not "foist untested, mediocre... pedagogical theories on America's schoolchildren", because the core doesn't talk about pedagogy (how to teach), it only talks about outcomes.

Over the next several weeks and months, I’ll use this column space to expose who’s behind this disastrous scheme in D.C. backrooms.

Michelle makes it seem as if this is a program driven by the Federal Government. In fact there have been several state regional efforts to develop common core standards. The current "Common Core" is an outcome of the state's efforts to develop a common core. The "Common Core" initiative is published by the National Governors Association, not a Federal Government agency.

Previous to the common core, large states like California and Texas were able to drive core standards without input simply because they were large purchasers of text books and text book companies catered to them in content areas. The new way of having a national standard is much more egalitarian in that educators all over the country have input into the standards and not just a few bureaucrats in a few states.

Professor Jonathan Goodman of New York University found that the Common Core math standards imposed “significantly lower expectations with respect to algebra and geometry than the published standards of other countries.”

The paragraph above promulgates the myth that standards are maximum standards. That somehow if a school wants to have higher standards they are prohibited. Any state, school or teacher can exceed the standards and teach at a higher level. Nothing in the "Common Core" would prevent accelerated classes.  Further the "Common Core" spreads Geometry and Algebra throughout all the grade levels instead of treating it as a separate subject.  If you look up the math standards there are Algebra and Geometry standards in each grade.

Under Common Core, as the American Principles Project and Pioneer Institute point out, Algebra I instruction is pushed to 9th grade, instead of 8th grade, as commonly taught. Division is postponed from 5th to 6th grade. Prime factorization, common denominators, conversions of fractions and decimals, and algebraic manipulation are de-emphasized or eschewed.

 Algebra I is not pushed anywhere because Algebraic thinking is infused within the entire K-8th grade curriculum as a strand and not as a separate class.  Division is not pushed from 5th to 6th grade because division is introduced in the 3rd grade. Fractions are also introduced in the 3rd grade and represent a significant strand in 3rd, 4th and 5th grade. Algebra is again a strand in all the lower grades. Factorization of all number from 1-100 is required in the 4th grade. Fractions are introduced in the 3rd grade.

Traditional Euclidean geometry is replaced with an experimental approach that had not been previously pilot-tested in the U.S.

Euclidian Geometry can't be replaced by and experimental approach because the standards do not indicate any approach to geometry, only the things students should know.

Common Core delays proficiency with addition and subtraction until 4th grade and proficiency with basic multiplication until 5th grade, and skimps on logarithms, mathematical induction, parametric equations and trigonometry at the high school level.

This is so blatently wrong that I can't even begin to understand where she got this information. Proficiency for grade 2 is to "know from memory all sums of two one-digit numbers."  That seems fairly proficient for me. Multiplication proficiency for the 3rd grade is to "Fluently multiply and divide within 100".

Whether the common core skimps on high school math is up to the states. States can choose to supplement any of the standards or teach to a higher level of proficiency. Nothing in the "Core curriculum" would keep a state from teaching more or offering accelerated classes.

Moreover, there are organizations that have reasons to work for lower and less-demanding standards, specifically teachers unions and professional teacher organizations.

I don't know how teacher's unions could use the "Common Core" to fight for lower standards.  They seem to be fighting for the lowest possible standards now.

This is all in keeping with my own experience as a parent of elementary- and middle-school age kids who were exposed to “Everyday Math” nonsense. This and other fads abandon “drill and kill” memorization techniques for fuzzy “critical thinking” methods that put the cart of “why” in front of the horse of “how.” In other words: Instead of doing the grunt work of hammering times tables and basic functions into kids’ heads first, the faddists have turned to wacky, wordy non-math alternatives to encourage “conceptual” understanding — without any mastery of the fundamentals of math.

 Michelle may not like the curriculum or pedagogy her children used, but the common core doesn't standardize curriculum or pedagogy. Schools can decide what curriculum to use and what methods to use to teach the standards. Michelle also has choices if she doesn't like the curriculum her school is using. She can try to change the curriculum by getting on the parent organization, or running for school board. She can opt out of the state school system by sending  them to a charter school, or a private school.

Sorry, Michelle, but you are wrong, wrong, and wrong.

Sequestration affect on IDEA funding

From an e-mail from the Utah State Office of education on the affect of sequestration on Special Ed funding.

Latest news on the sequestration:

·        The White House issued a notice on Friday that companies working under government contracts don’t have to provide notice of potential layoff because the sequestration is still “uncertain”. Normally, this notice is required 60 days prior to layoff, which coincidentally is right before the election. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/memoranda/2012/m-12-19.pdf

·        The White House also issued a report last week that describes in more detail the cuts for each department (see attached). This report lists estimated percentages, but does not have any information about how each specific federal agency will handle the assigned cuts. For us, this means that we don’t know how much of the cut will be taken at OSEP and how much will be passed on to States.  

      

     We also don’t know if this cut will change the minimum and maximum amounts that are included in the IDEA formula. This report was prepared by the current administration and includes a fair amount of finger pointing. 

      

     You’ll find the Department of Education on page 60, and OSERS on page 61. The reduction for OSEP is estimated at 8,.2%, or just over $1 billion. There is also a $2 million reduction to the American Printing House for the Blind, which provides specialized instructional materials for Utah students with visual impairment.

·        Both parties agree that the sequestration poses a threat to national economic growth. They are unable to agree on how to resolve the sequestration (new taxes vs program cuts). Because of their inability to work together, sequestration is still a very real possibility.

·        There is still no move to change or adjust the expectation that LEAs meet the MOE and Excess Costs requirements for state and local funds.

Small House in a Big House #4

I measured the space in my kitchen/family room. It is less than 500 sq. ft. My goal is to eventually get everything that I personally own in that space. I won't physically move everything to that space, but I will make sure that all that I have will fit. There is no way I will be able to get my entire family's stuff in that space.  The kitchen has tons of cabinet space to store things so I can definitely get all of my items in that space. Most of the small house designs I have seen have a loft for the bed, so I am going to assume I don't have to leave room for that.

I am pondering what do do with the yard and cleaning supplies. I am not going to get my new LG washing and drying machine in the kitchen. I guess there are some things that I will simply have to exclude with the intention of getting rid of them if I actually downsize.

I realize now, this process is going to take at least 6 months. Even with the stuff I have gotten rid of so far, it has hardly made a dent.


Today's project was a small linen closet upstairs, I cleaned out a small linen closet upstairs and was able to identify two full garbage bags.

No one ever looked in the closet for linens.  There wasn't room in it to store clean linens, so they ended up in my closet.

I swear I am not a hoarder. 

Small House in a Big House #3

Continuing my efforts to live in a small house, inside my big house. I am sorting out the books in the family room.

I have sorted out the book shelf.
Books I am taking to the school library

Books I am taking to the thrift store

I don't know why the picture below won't come into the blog the same way it shows up in my camera, but oh, well. 

This is only half of the books I have in my family room. I still have so many more to go in this house.

Small House in a Big House #2

Today I cleaned out my kitchen again. I think I throw out a garbage full of stuff every 3 months, but I still have more.

I threw out a garbage bag full of just junk, and a large box full of recipe books and kitchen equipment.

I also threw out 5 garbage bags full of clothes and other kitchen equipment from my basement. Today I threw out some items that I really didn't want to get rid of. My sister gave me a dish with impressions in it to make shortbread cake. I think I used it once and the shortbread stuck to the dish.

I also got rid of some 1950s vintage baking dishes that were divided in half. I have no idea what anyone used these dishes for. If you have two different foods they would generally have two different cooking times or temperatures. I don't know what you would cook in a baking dish that was separated, unless it was essentially the same food but with slightly different ingredients, for instance baked mac and cheese, with different cheeses on each side. I had 3 different colors of these dishes and they looked great, but I never used them.

Small House in a Big House

I love the idea of the small house movement. Seeing people that live in a 300 ft sq. house is an inspiration. I have a large house and I am not going to sell my large house to move to a small house. I can however have a small house within my large house.

First step, go room to room and throw out at least a garbage bag full of junk.
Second step, eliminate rooms of furniture.
Third step, go to step 1.
Continue until I can fit all my stuff in a van.

Problem 1: I like having CDs of my music. It is very comforting to me to know I have a hard copy of the music. I don't like the idea of having all my music digital because I don't want to lose a password, or have a disk go bad or lose access to the music. This is weird because I am not a music person. I don't listen to music on a regular basis. What I don't know is what I am going to do with all the vinyl records in my basement. Probably KSL.com for all of them.

John Carter from Mars - The movie

The movie adaption of Edgar Rice Burrough's John Carter books, opens with a brief view of Mars then flashbacks to a flash-forward of John Carter on earth, then flash backs through the reading of a journal. If all these unnecessary time warps were not confusing enough, the screen play inserts a completely unnecessary complication at the very beginning that undercuts the logic of key points of the movie.

John Carter is shown at the beginning as a war weary veteran who refuses to fight or take sides. He is asked by the local Army outpost to fight against the Indians. Because he refuses he is beaten and thrown in a cage. This is not in the movie and for good reason, what could beating a man who won't fight accomplish. You can't make someone fight who doesn't want to and they have nothing to hold over him at all and if they did, the don't try. The point of this is to show that he is now a pacifist and won't take sides.

He flees from the army outpost and in the process needs to rescue the officer who beat him and is now chasing him. John Carter and his pursuers meet  a group of Indians and, in another cliche, one of the army men shoots an Indian while they are beginning to communicate. Fine the Army was bad, but can movies just avoid cliches at least?  I was already insulted. "See kids war is bad, the army is bad! John  Carter is good because he doesn't want to fight and rescues the man who had him thrown in jail."

The problem with this cliche is that we know he is going to Mars. Mars is  the War god. The entire point of the book is that the ethos of Mars is one of martial virtue. All the different cultures and races on Mars honor war, warriors, and are in constant war with each other.

The John Carter of the books is a warrior and adventurer, not a pacifist. Sure you say, but this is the movie and books can't exactly follow the books because it is a different medium. Yes, that is true, but the problem is that all the people of Mars are warriors, including Dejah Thoris, the Princess of Helium (more on her character later). Warriors on Mars are honored and respected. The movie ignores the warrior ethos and the logic behind how John Carter is able to show up on an alien planet and win over all the Green Men who he needs to fight for him at the end of the movie. The Green Men will not follow weakness, sentimentality or pacifists. The books show John Carter as not just strong but mad (yes crazy) with blood lust that matches the blood lust of those around him. He wins over this barbaric group by being a warrior. In the process of winning them, he can change them into a more caring society. Of course, John Carter exhibits chivalry in an old fashioned southern gentleman sort of way, but the initial pacifism of John Carter in the movie would have gotten him killed and shunned not honored and respected.

The aggravating point of this is that if the writer director wanted to "message" the audience, the message was there for the taking. Mars is a dying planet, a once great society is breaking down, the people are waring over scarce resources. There is a message that was obviously relevant to current discussions about fossil fuels and global warming. It was overlooked by the writer/director for some reason and instead the anti-war meme was inserted which holds the movie back and undercuts the logic of the movie.

The aggravating misuse of ideas continues with our introduction to Dejah Thoris. She is introduced as a scientist who is developing a new powerful weapon to save her nation. This ignores the theme in the book that Mars is dying, the culture is lost, and the people are living off of the intellectual capital of the past. Instead of embracing this message (again, if he wanted to message us, then how about using the one right in front of you) he tries to modernize Dejah Thoris as a scientist. Her first words are preparation for a speech to her father and the leaders of Helium.  As she practices her speech for the presentation she is shown as insecure, not sure how to communicate her ideas and stumbles over her words. Again, he undercuts the message of her as an accomplished scientist with the little girl lost theme of the stumbling speech.

After she is told she must marry the enemy to gain peace she escapes and is shown as a warrior capable of killing other soldiers. Again, pick your theme! Is she a stumbling insecure scientist, or a princess as war prize, or a warrior. She is used as a guide to John Carter to find the meaning of the amulet, but this could have taken place without this departure from her character of the books. After a time, her character settles into the war prize theme of the book. At no time does she act like the Princess of Mars from the book. She is too common.

At the end of the movie, the Green Men leader, Tars Tarkis, is shown with a tear at the wedding of John Carter and Dejah Thoris. I could expect this knee jerk reaction from a Disney director who also directed Finding Nemo and Wall-E. Apparently this hack could not find a smidgen of sympathy for these warriors, survivors and monsters to retain their dignity. It is a horrifying betrayal of the character to make them into a sentimental ET.

The environments, cities, interiors and costumes were all very well done.