Loyal readers will know that I have little to no respect for the Go Math! program, including it’s instructions to tell students that the fraction 3/1 is pronounced “three ones.”

A correspondent writes that her principal criticized a lesson she did because she referred to fractions and whole numbers, as in 1 1/2, as “mixed numbers,” when he/she insisted it was “mixed fractions.” Sounds like this principal was a bit mixed up: when you have a whole number and a fraction together, they have to be mixed numbers, because they both belong to that supercategory. The only way they could be mixed fractions is if they were both fractions.

But don’t take my word for it: here’s the definition in a wonderful textbook by Open Court called “Real Math.” It’s about 30 years old….

Case closed. Score one for my correspondent, the principal gets 1/1,000.

Walking around my hood I bump into a fellow do-gooder. She tells me she saw my piece on Diane Ravitch’s blog. I tell her how the whole issue gets my blood boiling, and describe the shameless use of 194 children as “human shields” to deflect the fact that the mendacious, self-serving administration at Success Academy never put together contingency plans in case their charter school was not given the go ahead.

“Do you know they tried to ‘co-locate’ in that school up the block,” she tells me.

“Really?”

“Yep, and they wanted to squeeze out the autistic program that was already there…”

“No way!”

“Oh yeah, they tried over and over again, but it was rejected each time.”

I shake my head; I think we can now re-define the word “chutzpah” to include crying over the kids who you didn’t prepare to go to an alternate middle school, while trying to displace a program that serves autistic children.

in which we imagine a day in the life of an “educational coordinator” at one of the Success Academy Charter Schools.

Dramatis Personae:

Educational Coordinator: a 21 year old marketing major from a state college in the midwest.

Teacher: A 24 year old engineering major from an Ivy League university.

EC: “Buffy, can you come in my office for a moment, please?”

T: “Yes, Mr. Scorewell, what can I do for you?”

EC: “I was looking at the latest practice test scores from  your third grade class.”

T (clearly nervous): “Oh, and how were they?”

EC: “Your class is making progress, but it’s just not enough. You know, the state tests are just a month away….”

T (starts to sweat): “I know, Mr. Scorewell, I’ve been calling their parents on the phone every night. They promised me they would get their kids to work harder. I even told them that their kids would stay in for recess if they don’t score better.”

EC (clears his throat): “Really, you’ve been calling each and every one of those parents?”

T (eyes dart around): “Well, it’s been getting really hard. Truthfully, they’re kind of tired from hearing me talk endlessly about ‘test this, test that.’ You would think they just don’t care anymore. They just want their kids to get a good education and be happy in school.”

EC (pounds the table): “Damn you, Buffy, you know this isn’t about getting a good education or being happy. It’s about getting those scores high as possible!”

T: “Couldn’t we just do what we did last year? (she mimes erasing motions in the air)

EC (pounds table again): “Blast you, Buffy, didn’t I make it clear we couldn’t try that again! Now have you got any suggestions to improve those test scores in your classroom?”

T: “Maybe we could have a pep rally and give away prizes to kids who get the highest scores?”

EC (tapping head): “I read something about “data walls.” Maybe we can tell the kids we’re going to post their names and scores when the results come in.”

T (loosening collar around neck): “You mean, like shaming them if they don’t perform better? I don’t know about….”

EC (pounds fist on table): “Buffy, are you with us, or are you against us? Remember, contract renewal time is coming up. I have a stack of over 20 resumes on my desk from Ivy League grads from around the country who are going to be needing work once graduation season arrives.”

T (hanging her head low) “Okay, I’ll do it. But do we have to call it a ‘data wall?’ It doesn’t really sound nice…”

EC (tapping head): “You may be right. How about the “Wall of Fame” for those who do well, and “Wall of Shame” for those who don’t?”

T (eyes wide): “No, no, don’t you see? That’s worse! Okay, ‘data wall’ it is. May I go now? I really need to go to the bathroom, because I have to teach for the next 3 hours without a break..”

EC: And don’t forget, you’re scheduled for the telethon this afternoon. Those donation checks from the hedge fund managers are not going to find us by themselves!”

T: Well, as a matter of fact, I do have a stack of papers to go through….

EC: Oh, and Buffy, don’t forget to call the parents tonight and tell them about the data wall, will you? That will really inspire them.

T: Yes, Mr. Scorewell, I will. (rushing to the bathroom…)

Finis

You know an organization has reached rock bottom when it uses children as human shields to advocate its alleged mission. Such is the “save the 194” campaign being waged by Eva Moscowitz and groups with deep pockets and hyperbolic names like “Charter Schools Work” (which tweets under the hilariously fake hashtag “Fam4ExcSchools.”)

Okay, you want to get down and dirty? Announcing ChartersSteal.org, a compendium of the various misdeeds that are part and parcel of the charter school industry.

Let’s begin with my list, which will be appearing on my first post:

How do charters steal?

ChartersSteal by diverting the easiest to teach students into their own schools, and leaving those with learning disabilities and English language learners to fend for themselves.

ChartersSteal by taking money from hedge fund managers and others who earned their fortunes by crashing the economy, and diverting it for their own political means.

ChartersSteal by taking up disproportionate amounts of space in public schools, displacing the students who were originally there.

ChartersSteal by using their students as “human shields” to push their own agenda.

ChartersSteal by promoting the fiction of “failing schools” while only working with a tiny percent of the carefully selected students.

ChartersSteal by using scab teachers like TeachForAmerica recruits who do their two years of service and then move on.

ChartersSteal by educating 4% of the NYC public school population, but taking up 90% of the news cycle.

ChartersSteal by using $75,000 to promote their cause in full page ads in the New York Times, instead of using that money to enhance the work in the classroom.

ChartersSteal by canceling an entire day of school and using scarce resources to ship their students to state capitals to forward their political agenda.

ChartersSteal by overpaying taking taxpayer money to overpay their leaders to the tune of $500,000 per year; twice the pay of the NYC school’s chancellor.

You want to add to the list? Please do!

A couple of third grade teachers and I were discussing how difficult it is to teach fractions well to children, especially those who are former ELL. We discussed how difficult it is to help children understand that the number “3,” which they’ve understood as being pronounced “three” for years and years, is now called “thirds” when it is placed as the denominator in a fraction. Which brought us to discuss this:

How would you pronounce this, I asked. The teachers looked it over, and one of them said, “in Go Math! they wrote that it should be pronounced as “3 over 1.” Immediately my face grew red, and I explained that saying “3 over 1” is not actually the name of any fraction – it merely describes the physical location of two numbers, instead of their relationship as a fraction. I also explained that the fraction would be interpreted as “language” in the brain, rather than as a “number,” if it was read like this.

Posthaste, the teacher searched through the teachers’ manual, found the reference and called out, “oh, it’s worse than I thought. Look at this!” and she pointed to this:

OMG!

This is absolutely, positively the last straw (and I’ve been loaded with many straws while working with Go Math!) Where in the world did this writer/editor/art director get the idea that this would be read in such a way, and what were the three lead authors with all their PhDs and other “qualifications” doing when this was slipped in.

For the record, it is pronounced “3 wholes.” Yes, when you put the number 1 as the denominator, it is called “wholes,” just like when you put the 2 in the denominator, it changes to “halves” and 4 becomes “fourths” or “quarters.”

How was this curriculum endorsed by the NY Department of Education, anyway?

I recently received a very sincere email by an acquaintance who was interested in my recommendations for a math program that would be used in a charter school that was to be opened by a friend of said correspondent. My response is below:

Dear  _____,

I have many opinions, especially concerning your friend who is going to open a charter school. Before I offer any math advice, I will offer some advice on opening a “fair” charter school.

First, opening a charter school involves being socially responsible: that means, if you are taking my tax money to open a school that is going to compete with a public school, then it must feature the following in order to be “responsible.”

• Will it be nondiscriminatory? That is, will it admit English Language Learners and students with Learning Disabilities in the same proportion as public schools? If not, then I don’t want to be part of it.

• Will it use space that is being underutilized or vacant? If you’re going to displace students and teachers from an already operating public school, I don’t want to be part of it.

• If the school co-locates in the same location as a pre-existing school, will it make efforts to bring students from all programs together? If your goal is to run a school that segregates kids and puts some “above” others, then I don’t want anything to do with it.

• Will the school truly be focused on teaching and learning? If this is a school which is going to be centered solely on raising test scores by hiring an “educational coordinator” to crunch the numbers, well, you guessed it, I want no part of it.

• Will the school be excessively obsessed with “discipline” and “structure?” If this is going to be one of those military type schools with kids marching around in uniforms and getting suspended for whispering in class, then yes, I want nothing to do with it.

• Will the school hire teachers who are experienced and will the school abide by union rules? If you’re going to go out and get a bunch of Teach for America scabs to work in this school for 2 years, then I want nothing to do with it. In fact, I will go to the hearing where this school is proposed and argue that it be stopped in its tracks.

• Will the school employ administrators who have a deep background in teaching and learning? If you’re going to appoint some twenty-something with little classroom experience to run this school (and that includes your friend), then I think it’s a terrible, horrible idea. If your friend’s only background is in business, I can assure you that I will do everything I can to stop this school from opening.

• Will the school pledge to service all students for their entire term in the school? If the school is going to “counsel out” underperforming students just to keep its test scores looking good, then I can assure you, I will not offer any support in my lifetime or any future ones.

Otherwise, I’m in!

best regards,

Robert

Everybody loves a good bandwagon, and the “love” being showered on Khan Academy is one that initially elicited a shrug from me. Of course, when Bill Gates tells us that Khan is the “best teacher he’s ever seen” (and if he’s so in love with him, why hasn’t he endowed a position for him to work at the exclusive private school that his children attend? Do you think that for the $25,000 annual tuition, those teachers are showing Khan videos in their classrooms, or following the Common Core State Standards that Gates funded?)

Enough about that: let’s get to the meat of the matter – last Friday, which we all know is where breaking news goes to die, a report was released by an outfit known as the “SRI Foundation,” whose board of directors looks like the membership committee at some exclusive country club. The report was sponsored by, wait for it….. Bill & Melinda Gates (I can imagine what balancing a checkbook at the Gates’ household must be like: “Honey, did you write a check for $2,000,000 to the SRI Foundation last month? Do you remember what it was for?” )

There’s nothing surprising in the report: they surveyed a small group of schools who volunteered to take part in the study. Okay, strike one: if your school volunteered to be part of a study, does that truly mean it was a randomized sample? Let’s move on…

Here’s how the report describes the scope of the study, which surveyed 2,000 students each year and encompassed a variety of charter, independent and public schools (I wonder if Lakeside was included in this survey?) Overall, it was 9 “sites” (which I assume to be school districts?), 20 schools and 70 teachers.

One site, a public elementary school district, had the largest level of participation, involving 8 schools, more than 50 teachers, and over a 1000 students. In the other sites, participation ranged from a single school and teacher, to two to three schools and five to six teachers.

Okay, so it’s statistically small and not truly randomized. What’s not to like?

Of course, the authors of the report were realistic about what could be accomplished during this study:

For these reasons, it was methodologically unsound to conduct a rigorous evaluation of Khan Academy’s impact on learning during the study period, including any use of randomized control trials, which would have required Khan Academy tools and resources to remain unchanged during the study and for teachers and students to use Khan Academy the same way. Moreover, at all but one of the sites, Khan Academy was principally used as a supplementary tool—not as the core primary curriculum—so the effects of Khan Academy cannot be separated from those contributed by other elements of the math curriculum.

I’m sorry, so why are we reading this report again? Let’s figure this out: the authors acknowledge that there is no way to separate how using Khan Academy videos impacted the development of mathematical competence.

So why are we reading this report again? All of which is odd, because later in the report there are some actual “findings” which contradicts what the authors acknowledge would be impossible in the course of the “study.”

At Site 1, we found that fifth graders with better than predicted end-of-year achievement test scores had spent an extra 12 hours over the school year using Khan Academy and that sixth graders exceeding their predicted achievement level had spent an extra 3 hours on Khan Academy, compared to grade-level peers with lower-than-expected end-of-year test scores. Similarly, fifth graders with higher than expected achievement test scores had completed 26 additional problem sets (39% more), and sixth graders with higher than expected achievement had completed 20 additional problem sets (or 22% more).

Pardon my confusion, but didn’t the authors of the report say that there was no way to factor out Khan’s contribution to student achievement? Yet here we have an implied correlation between viewing Khan videos and “higher than expected achievement” among fifth graders. And why are we reading this report?

I enjoyed reading the other observations in the report. Among the findings was the level of “engagement” “observed” during something called “Khan Time.” I’m trying to imagine what “Khan Time” must be like in the classroom: it’s when the teacher stops lecturing for 5 minutes and shows the kids a Khan video. The findings report that the observers saw that 62% of the students were “moderately engaged” and 25% were “highly engaged.” What could that mean? From what I would imagine, the “moderately engaged” students stopped looking at their cellphones long enough to say, “look, teacher is showing YouTube in class!” while the “highly engaged” ones actually stopped Instagramming a “selfie.” 

Seriously, the methodology on this study is so ridiculous, it’s a wonder SRI didn’t release this on a Saturday night, when it would have been DOA. Here’s another neat finding from the study:

Overall 71% of students reported that they enjoyed using Khan Academy, and 32% agreed they liked math more since they started using Khan Academy.

Yes, they “enjoyed’ using Khan Academy; versus what? Perhaps that 71% attends classes where the teacher lectures for 20 minutes and the kids do “seatwork” for the rest of the class. Well, then I could see how those students enjoyed using Khan Academy, if only to hear a different voice. What about the 32% who said they like math “more” since they started with Khan: okay, 32% sounds like a good stat, but compared to what? I know a way to have 100% students enjoy math more: give them a cupcake at the conclusion of each math class. 

What’s even more lame about this study is that it doesn’t compare Khan videos with other methods of inspiring and motivating students. Did they compare it to training the teachers to use project based learning in the classroom? How about watching math videos by someone else besides Khan Academy. It may be that any video content would work, and that the results might actually be better than Khan. Suppose we showed these students better quality videos? Perhaps 100% would “enjoy math more”?

Finally, it should be noted that much of this was based on “self reporting,” that is, the students and teachers fill out surveys that described their habits and attitudes. We all know how unreliable self-reporting can be, but why go on?

In the end, what do we have? A cruddy report that will become a self-promoting tool for a model of math instruction that was antiquated even before it was declared revolutionary. Seriously, can’t Bill & Melinda find something useful to do with their fortune than pay off a bunch of number crunchers to advocate for an outdated and regressive model of mathematical instruction that is “better” when compared to nothing.

We all have heard about Michael Lewis’ economic take-down of Major League baseball through the development of “sabermetrics,” the practice of using objective statistical information to optimize a team’s performance at the lowest possible cost. Lewis concluded that this was the result of  “the ruthless drive for efficiency that capitalism demands.” Over a decade later, many Major League baseball teams make use of statisticians to get the cheapest players who will give them the greatest “bang for the buck.” Has this destroyed baseball as we know it? Only time will tell.

And now, a story: I was out with a friend for lunch when I inquired about her daughter, who had graduated from college the previous spring. She told me her daughter had found a “great job,” and went on to explain that she was going to be the “educational coordinator” at a school.

“Educational coordinator?” I said, “isn’t that the position that teachers who are in the classroom for like 10 years are given?”

“Well, this is a different type of coordinator,” she explained.

“I don’t understand. Is she going to be helping teachers with their curriculum?”

“No, not really…”

“Oh, okay, is she going to be performing evaluations on students?”

“No, not really…”

“Okay, is she going to be coaching teachers?”

“No, not really…”

“I’m a little confused: if she’s not creating curriculum, performing evaluations or coaching teachers, what exactly will she be doing?”

“She’s going to be looking at testing data and telling teachers what they have to teach in order to raise their test scores.”

“Oh…..”

As the conversation ensued, I found out that the position of “educational coordinator” would be at one of Eva Moscowitz’s “Success Academies” and that this employee, who had exactly zilch in the way of experience in teaching (she was a biology major in college) would be payed $49,000 per annum to be a full-time number cruncher for the school. Incidentally, this is nearly 10% more than the starting salary of a NYC public school teacher.

I decided to look this up for myself to see if this was accurate, so I went to the Success Academy website and found this exact job description:

Reporting directly to the school leader, the school-based Education Coordinator is responsible for student information related to assessments and special education services school-wide. Education coordinators collaborate closely with the Advisory and Data Reporting departments at Success Academy Charter Schools.

Responsibilities include:

• Coordinate all student achievement testing and data collection for the school.
• Prepare and present data results to school leaders.
• Manage the entire test administration process for all grades and all students within the school. This includes high-stakes exams for scholars in grade 3 and up.
• Train teachers on administration and scoring of assessments.
• Manage scholar promotion and academic data using our Student Management System.
• Coordinate scholar report cards.
• Coordinate the Response to Intervention (RTI) process at the school, including data meetings, tutoring sessions, and meetings with the School Based Support Team (SBST).
• Provide necessary data and information to network Special Education Managers.
• Coordinate student Individualized Education Program (IEP) creation, and interact with teachers, parents, and special education providers to determine current and future educational services for all students.
• Communicate student performance results to parents, including the need for additional support services if necessary.

Incidentally, none of the bulleted qualifications following this job description included anything about relevant work in the field of education. Instead, the number one quality was “Customer service orientation: Employs diplomacy in all interactions.” So what we’re saying is that this requires the same skill set one would have practiced while, say, folding shirts in an American Apparel store?

Getting back to the conversation, I told my friend in no uncertain terms that her daughter was working for “the enemy” and that regardless of the poor state of the job market for college graduates, this was beyond the pale, especially since her children were direct beneficiaries of the public school system that Moscowitz and the Success Charter Schools have so badly wounded.

So now we know the secret ingredient in the recipe Eva Moscowitz uses to boost the test scores at her schools (well, other than barring entry to students classified as English Language Learners and Learning Disabled, not to mention the now legendary high attrition rate.)

What we have here is a the “Moneyball” approach to public education: if you need “good numbers” to prove your value, then hire someone whose full-time job is to analyze those numbers and tell teachers exactly what to teach in order to get those numbers to obey.

And what if the student can’t make those numbers? Well, if you were reading the job description closely, you would have seen this duty:

“Coordinate student Individualized Education Program (IEP) creation, and interact with teachers, parents, and special education providers to determine current and future educational services for all students.”

Hmmm, I wonder what those “interactions” with teachers, parents and special education providers about “current and future educational services” would look like? I can imagine it would sound something like this: “I’m sorry, but this does not seem like the right educational placement for your child. I do have a suggestion for an alternative that might be a better fit….”

Well, at least I have someone on the inside now: let’s see how this “job” pans out!

I’m thrilled Andrew Cuomo is governor of this great state, because it means that I can publish the above question and, being the public figure he is, I can totally get away with it. I can also ask “Is it true that Eva Moskowtiz and Michele Rhee are mendacious assholes?” in the same paragraph, and not fear that I will be prosecuted for libel. Of course, it’s not that hard to “prove” that they are, in fact, all mendacious assholes, but let’s start with some evidence.

Photo of said mendacious asshole addressing crowd at rally while bussed in charter school students stand in cold.

Here is a photo of said mendacious asshole addressing a crowd of charter school supporters, which includes children who were forced to skip school, placed on a long bus ride, and made to stand out in the cold to promote the cause of overpaid mendacious assholes like Eva Moscowitz.

Do we really need mendacious assholes like Andrew Cuomo as governor of NY? Why did he take $200,000 in campaign contributions from Charterswork? Is he corrupt, or just a mendacious asshole? And why is he grandstanding on an issue that affects, wait for it….. just 6% of all students in NYC, and more importantly, why isn’t he doing the same for the other 94%?

What’s my problem with charter schools, you ask? I don’t know where to begin, but here it is in a nutshell: chutzpah. You open a school, take all sorts of private money to fund advertising and publicity, exclude students from enrolling through a variety of strategies, and then expel those for whom you cannot or will not provide essential services or are discipline problems, underpay inexperienced teachers and work them to death so there is high turnover, then you instruct your teachers to “teach to the test” AND then have some students who might not measure up stay home on the day of the test, and then give your students copies of the test before they take it, shut up your students in computer labs to be “supervised” by $15 per hour aids, then rake off money for your shareholders and hire all sorts of corrupt ex-government officials to promote your cause, scream when you are asked to pay your share for the space you use to displace kids in public schools, AND then pat yourself on the back when your test scores show up marginally better than the local public school, which doesn’t do ANY of these things….

and you have the chutzpah to say you are “outperforming” public schools?

Give me a break, mendacious asshole “Governor” Cuomo….

In my previous rant, I went on and on about the cruddiness of math workbooks and how teachers come to rely on them for exercises for their students. However, the truth behind these workbooks is that they are rarely written by actual mathematics educators. In fact, they are usually assigned to the bottom feeders of the publishing industry, and there is little to no actual professional oversight of the content.

I’ll cite one example, which is drawn from the Go Math! third grade workbook, which a group of about a dozen kids were laboring through while their teacher led a “mini-lesson” at the other end of the room:

A Trig Table: Readable in any direction!

These poor kids: they thought the second table was also about multiplication, but the “authors” switched the operation to division. Here’s the problem: it is not clear which order you are supposed to do the division, because the point of a “table” is that it is supposed to be independent of “order” –  addition, multiplication, distance (or any other table for that matter) should be able to be read without need for knowing the “direction.”

But since we have the table, and since we read problems with the “÷” from left to right, it appears that we’re supposed to read the numbers in the column first and then the row. But that doesn’t make sense, as these kids are third graders, and they don’t know what 10 ÷ 50 would mean……

But division, as we all know, is not commutative, a property which 3rd graders are just figuring out. We have to assume that the upper row is the dividend and the numbers in the left column are the divisors because the dividend is supposed to be bigger than the divisor (at least, in order to make sense if you are in third grade), but if we do assume this, that violates a fundamental principle of concept development: you can’t state a principle unless it is universally true. Dividends are bigger than divisors in only a limited number of contexts; in fact, the size of the two numbers has nothing to do with determining which is the divisor or dividend – that is dependent on something called “context.”

Yes, in 3rd grade, children do usually encounter dividends are larger than divisors, but they can also be equal (20 ÷ 20 = 1) and they can be smaller (0 ÷ 1 = 0) (and all these examples were on the same page of the workbook, btw.)

The point of this rant is that this is an example of cruddy workbook content; the authors called it “algebra” under the misguided notion that this is what an algebraic table might look like a few years down the road (it won’t), but instead it is confusing and the poor children who were left to attempt this on their own were completely baffled by the task. The only thing that cleared up this confusion was that I happened to be visiting the classroom that day. Really, is this content “safe” enough to be left alone with children?