This is what Silberman calls his "first installment" in an ongoing series of pieces he plans to produce about the issues facing public education today, a plan that echoes what Bob Sexton did so well. Silberman writes,
Over at the Prich Blog, new blogger Stu ponders even more questions than those below.We think it is important that the Prichard Committee continue its tradition of sharing its citizen’s group perspective on matters that affect the education of Kentucky’s children. I believe the series will generate a large amount of discussion across our Commonwealth, shining a light on what Kentucky needs to move forward in the years ahead. The Prichard Committee’s goal is for our state to be in the top 20 of national education rankings by 2020. We believe this is a very attainable goal, as our future opinion pieces will outline.
This from Stu Silberman (via email):
Kentucky has made great strides in education over the past 20 years. This progress is the result of a tremendous amount of hard work by teachers, students, parents, advocates, policymakers, administrators and countless other citizens committed to building a better future. It is important that we recognize and celebrate this work and the difference it has made – moving Kentucky from 49th to 33rd among the states in one recognized index that combines national education rankings.
An especially exciting set of data comes from the science scores on the 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress – often called the nation’s report card. Kentucky’s fourth-
graders ranked 4th among the 46 participating states, and our eighth-graders ranked 15th. Results like that tell us that we have cause for pride in past work even as we realize there is plenty more to be done.
The Prichard Committee for Academic Excellence, an independent, nonprofit, nonpartisan group of volunteers who have worked since 1983 to improve education, has been at the forefront of this work, a position the committee plans to maintain as it enters the next phase of advocacy and citizen engagement on behalf of Kentucky’s schools. The committee’s goal of Kentucky being in the nation’s top 20 states by 2020 is an ambitious one (Link: http://www.prichardcommittee.org/wp-content/TOP_20.pdf), and it is good to know that we are moving in the right direction in some areas. But we continue to come up short in others, and we must acknowledge that we have a long way to go before we see high levels of achievement for all of our students.
It is our intent to continue monitoring Kentucky’s progress closely, to keep Kentuckians updated on successes and continuing challenges, and to point out areas where we believe change is needed. We also think it is important to acknowledge and shed light on the escalating debate about education and what really is best for the future of kids in Kentucky and America. The bottom line is whether we are preparing our children to succeed in their communities, the state and the world. Knowing whether this is actually happening is critical. So is taking the right steps to make sure it does.
But anyone who follows the discussions about education reform or reads any education article or publication knows there is a growing intensity across the country about education policy and practice. Many experts are far apart in their thinking, at best, or diametrically opposed to each other’s proposals, at worst. Understandably, when it comes to our children, we all are very passionate about what we believe is best for them.
The purpose of this writing is to put some of these issues on the table in a broad way, and we’ll follow up with more detailed reviews of each of these issues in the weeks and months ahead. The goal is to keep Kentuckians up to date as the education agenda for the state and nation is established and programs are put in place. The Prichard Committee’s blog also is a good resource for anyone wanting to know more.
Below is a brief description of the issues and topics that are the focus of current debates in education with more questions in each area on our blog. (Link: http://prichblog.blogspot.com/)
Student Achievement: It is 2011 and we still have significant achievement gaps. How do we address this issue? For example, will high quality pre-school for all students eliminate these gaps in the future?
Curriculum and Standards: What should we be teaching our kids? Forty-four states have adopted what are called the Common Core standards. Should there be a consistent set of standards that guide teaching and learning?
Accountability and Testing: How much should we be testing students? Should standardized testing be used for accountability? How do we measure student progress? Are teachers teaching to the test, and is that good or bad?
Teachers: How should teachers be evaluated? Are salaries and benefits too low or too high? Should teacher pay be linked to student performance? Is tenure good or bad?
Factors Outside the Classroom: How do we address problems we have in our society, like poverty, to ensure all students receive a high quality education? How important is the role of the parent/guardian and what should that look like? Are extra-curricular activities important?
School Choice: Charters, vouchers, private schools, magnet schools, home schools, digital schools, schools of innovation.....Does having choice make a difference?
Funding: Are the current levels of funding for our schools adequate? Is Kentucky's funding formula equitable? Is it time to mobilize citizens around this issue?
Governance/Leadership: Do we need site based councils, boards of education, state departments of education, or are there other governance structures that would work better?
We will address each of these issues in more detail, starting with student achievement, in the weeks and months ahead. Meanwhile, we must celebrate our progress but do it as we continue to speak out as strong advocates with high expectations for our kids, our schools and our future. Time is of the essence. To paraphrase an infamous general: we must stop looking at our calendars and start looking at our watches!
24 comments:
I'm sorry, Richard, I cannot take anything Stu Silberman says seriously. As a teacher in FCPS, the end never justifies the means. When Stu begins to value teachers, bus drivers, and paraprofessionals, I'll begin to listen.
Stu raises some worthwhile points in his much longer post in the Prichard Blog, and they are well worth consideration.
However, there is one thing I have to ask. I wonder how many of your readers really think Kentucky ranks 33 among all the states for education?
I also wonder how is it that Stu thinks this ranking is "recognized," except maybe as a good example of very poor analysis.
The rankings paper does some pretty off the wall things like comparing Kentucky’s ACT performance to that in every other state. This inappropriate comparison totally ignores the fact that high school graduates’ participation rates in each state on the ACT vary widely from a low of less than 10% of graduates in Maine to 100% here and in some other states.
Even ACT, Incorporated says they discourage such inappropriate rankings.
The ranking paper Stu cites also ranked Kentucky’s 2008 dropout rates against other states. The reporting of dropouts in Kentucky was officially audited in 2006. The audit found the Kentucky Department of Education’s figures seriously under-reported dropouts here. Nothing had been fixed in the dropout reporting process by 2008.
Why would anyone try to rank such data after it was officially cited for such defects and the defects remained uncorrected?
There are plenty of other problems, as well, and you can read about those here:
http://bluegrasspolicy-blog.blogspot.com/2011/07/nonsense-kentucky-education-rankings.html
Stu would do well to distance himself from this report. It won’t help his credibility.
Top 20? Stu, what are you thinking? You are starting to sound like Lee Todd.
Sorry, Mr. Innes, Stu has no credibility. His strategy for education reform was nothing more than "test preparation" and "teaching to the test." Ask any person who experienced the "Silberman Way."
When I was in college, I took a class which explained the difference between appearance and reality. The appearance may be that Stu will get Kentucky to be in the Top 20 in terms of education. But how will he do that, how can he lead with all the skeletons in his closet, with all the litigation?
The reality reads more like this: Stu Silberman has reached his current level of incompetence at the Pritchard Committee. Judging from all that I have read about its namesake Ed Prichard, he would have have HATED Stu. Anti-intellectual and populist, Stu is not fit to lead the state's educational think tank.
I beg to disagree. A superintendent with a PhD and a proven track record in higher education is not an ignoramous. Stu has been invited to teach at Harvard, the University of Kentucky, and Eastern Kentucky University. He has declined these positions because of his LOVE of children.
Some people have it out for Stu, and the moderator needs to make that clear. Stu Silberman has sacrificed his life for the students of Fayette County. He is not a shameless self promoter, bur tather a committed pedagogue. Why the courts are listening to these whiners is beyond me.
People seem to forget the shape we were in before Stu came to Fayette County. He was the fourth or fifth superintendent in three years coming to a school system that was nearly destroyed. Stu, along, with many others under his leadership, brought stability, high expectations, order, respect, and increased achievement to a place that was in utter turmoil. The students were the ones paying the price for adult agendas before Stu got here. This city was lucky to have Stu's leadership for the short time we did.
It is so evident that in taking care of the children that he made some adults angry to the point that they post personal attacks here.
Mr. Innes makes some thoughtful and professional observations but the others made mere personal attacks behind a cloak of anonymity.
I have to agree that as the moderator of this site you should keep this a professional place and not allow personal attacks on people, no matter who those attacks are directed at. Public discourse is good for our future but what you allow on here is purely unprofessional.
Just because you look good on paper does not mean that you are a good fit for that job, that is something that our Board had to find out the hard way and now they are left with a new superintendent to clean up his mess. Stu may have declined those positions but it was not for the LOVE of the students, but more for his ego. The courts are listening because Stu would not, maybe he will listen now.
Dear Ricahrd,
I am a teacher in the school system. Please do not disable the device that allows us to post anonymously. We are still too afraid to speak up.
And where is the evidence Stu was aksed to teach at EKU and Harvard? I don't believe that for a minute....
Thanks for all the comments, folks.
September 22, 2011 6:20 PM: No need to apologize to me. I'll try to shoot down the middle and see the pros and cons of the various arguments, but KSN&C readers are free to comment (albeit politely) as they see fit. No public figure is above comment. On the contrary, our comments temper the discussion of public issues and sometimes resonate to the degree that they create change in that leadership.
Richard: I agree that Stu is preparing to raise issues that ought to be discussed. The Prichard Committee has always done this and Stu has a good staff.
I don't know how many readers believe that Kentucky schools have improved their standing since KERA, but I sure do. I lived through it in the schools and understand very well the differences between the schools of the 1980s and the schools of today.
As for imperfect rankings – I'm sure they are to some degree. But four different studies now, using (I think it's three) different methods have found Kentucky to rank anywhere from 31st to 34th. All states were compared on the same measure and while comparing ACT scores may be inappropriate, the practice would tend to penalize (not advantage) states like Kentucky whose students all take the test. One might argue that Kentucky’s rank could be higher than stated, but let’s not. Dropout rates are getting fixed, as you know.
September 22, 2011 10:39 PM: Yeah, Prichard and lots of groups (like legislatures) are into setting time-specific goals. I’m not a fan, but I understand the argument for it.
September 22, 2011 10:39 PM: I appreciate the fact that I left the district as Stu was arriving, so my knowledge of life with Stu is second-hand. I can see where one might become so completely turned off by someone else that they no longer see their strengths.
September 23, 2011 9:44 PM: I haven't met a perfect superintendent yet. They are all a combination of strengths and weaknesses, just like the rest of us. I can understand the frustration of teachers who may have felt unsupported, or feel that their ideas were not valued. But I try to look at the whole picture and, while being critical sometimes, I also try to give credit where it is due. Then, the readers decide.
As for Prichard; as great as it might be to get inside his mind for a while, I'd prefer to leave any speculation on whomever Prich might have liked to those who actually knew him: Carolyn Witt Jones comes to mind.
I get the "populist" criticism (but we must acknowledge that the superintendency is a politically charged public service job - in anyone's hands.
The "anti-intellectual" charge: I'm not at all sure that's right.
A fair comparison to Bob Sexton (if that's what's on our minds) must acknowledge that Sexton spent decades in study, writing and grassroots political action. During that same time, Silberman had been running schools, and everything that takes. If anything, Silberman is a direct descendant of Prichard and Sexton's policies. As far as I can tell, he has followed the school reform playbook wherever he went.
The Prichard Committee has been notable for its ability to do most of the thinking that propels school reform.
Silberman has merely to prove himself in this new role.
September 25, 2011 1:56 PM: It seems to me you overstate the case a tad, but have the right idea.
Breathless Op Eds about what a mess central office was were overstated - and I say that as an occasional critic myself. There were lots of talented folks in the district. The district was operating, but somewhat adrift. It lost much of its institutional memory and it was the leadership that was lacking. Silberman solved that.
September 25, 2011 9:46 AM: I get the emotion, but where are the facts?!
Silberman does not have a PhD; his "proven track record" includes pluses and minuses; lacking a terminal degree, he will not be joining the faculty at Harvard anytime soon, and to my knowledge, has never worked in higher education. But Stu is certainly "not an ignoramous," as evidenced by his capable administration of a sizable school district.
According to you, Stu has declined some jobs I'm not sure were offered. (See: lack of terminal degree above) But if he was invited to teach, he would certainly have a wealth of information to offer in certain areas. Whatever his motivations for considering any position, he had about 230,000 pretty good reasons to remain the superintendent of Fayette county. Nobody else was offering that.
I have no doubt that he loves improving things for kids...and around here, we tend to debate the degree to which that happened.
There are some folks who feel burned by Silberman. They tend to be teachers and all are welcome to express themselves here. The moderator only takes out the trash.
Stu Silberman has not "sacrificed his life for the students of Fayette County." He is, in fact, still alive. And he just wrapped up a 30+ year career doing the important and rewarding work of schooling, while gaining the respect of the a sizable majority of the public. I'd think he has had a very satisfying career and profited along the way.
If we faulted every leader who had an ego...
Around here we consider any self-promotion to be "shameless." : )
In the presence of a claim, based on some evidence, the courts will listen. I think that's a good thing. The courts have listened, and the record is less than perfect.
Every superintendent gets some folks angry. In that job, if nobody’s getting in your way, you’re not going anywhere. But some would argue against the proposition that the district treated everyone with "respect."
I like Mr Innes too, but about half the time he’s full of crap. He rails against the Long-term Policy Research Center’s use of graduation data and then does far worse at BIPPS actually creating (in his mind) programs that KDE never had, and then arguing against the non-existent program. Shameful. I’d feel a whole lot better about his allegations if they were not so consistently and blatantly designed to harm the public schools.
If this site is too rough for you my suggestion is to stay off the internet. The language is a lot rougher almost everywhere else.
There is nothing professional about creating heroes and then giving them a pass. Homey don't play dat.
September 25, 2011 2:28 PM: See above. I believe the commenter had more than a few facts crooked.
September 25, 2011 6:03 PM: I have no plans to alter the site. While I’m not a fan of anonymous comments, I understand them and will continue to provide this outlet for expression. Even the critics of this site’s moderation posted anonymously. Why? What possible repercussion could come from a citizen fussing at a blogger?
Richard,
RE: Your allegations in your September 25, 2011 1:56 PM response.
I frankly find it amazing that you never heard of the generic term "Fuzzy Math" or the more specific term "Whole Language Reading." "Fuzzy Math" refers to a class of poorly crafted math programs, not a specific program. Ditto for Whole Language Reading.
Please do a more research before you start spreading ad hominem attacks around. Your readers deserve better.
And, if you think I'm full of baloney about half the time, you aren't reading much of my writings. Whatever you are reading either must be a very small, non-representative sample, or you don't understand what I have said.
Fuzzy math is a pejoritive term for poor calculations.
It is not now and never has been a KDE program as you alleged in your December "research" report of failed KERA programs.
I can only assume you made it up precisely because it is a pejorative.
I never complained about your criticism of whole language. That was a KDE effort but is not at all a generic term in the same way you used fuzzy math.
Perhaps I was too harsh, but c'mon Richard, you can't just make stuff up.
Richard
RE: Your ignorance regarding "fuzzy math."
Here is a very long-established web site that talks about what fuzzy math includes:
http://www.mathematicallycorrect.com/
(You can Google up more on your own).
Mathematically Correct write:
"The advocates of the new, fuzzy math have practiced their rhetoric well. They speak of higher-order thinking, conceptual understanding and solving problems, but they neglect the systematic mastery of the fundamental building blocks necessary for success in any of these areas. Their focus is on things like calculators, blocks, guesswork, and group activities and they shun things like algorithms and repeated practice. The new programs are shy on fundamentals and they also lack the mathematical depth and rigor that promotes greater achievement."
A great many of these things were pushed by KDE’s math gurus.
For example, we were told in early information booklets about KIRIS that getting the right answer was not as important as process understanding.
Fractions were deemphasized as no longer important because of calculators. The Progressives who pushed this bad idea didn’t foresee a serious unintended consequence: without mastery of fractions, students were hobbled when they started to take algebra, lost in working with the numerical coefficients and unable to even approach the more demanding manipulation of x, y, a and b, etc.
Perhaps the height of the math misdirection was the attempt to create math portfolios, a Progressive experiment that only lasted four years.
That’s what I am talking about. It is well-recorded history. I’m sorry you either forgot it or never noticed.
The math mistakes in particular, have had long-term effects in Kentucky. That is why our white eighth grade students got NAEP math scores in 2009 that were statistically significantly higher than only one other state’s whites. That state wasn’t Mississippi, by the way. It was West Virginia.
Richard: You've got to be kidding me. What does a California math website have to do with programs advanced by the Kentucky Department of Education?
I spent many years in Kentucky schools, and never, not once, was there a KDE program by the name you claim.
I'm glad you posted this. Readers can take a look and see clearly how you formulate your ideas. And it confirms, my claim that the authors developed the pejorative term to describe math programs they don't like.
Criticizing math instruction is one thing. But your claim that Kentucky had a program called "Fuzzy Math" that it was shoving down the throats of the schools is simply false. How you extrapolate material on the website into a KDE program is stunning. One might criticize KDE for many things, but your creation of this straw man is, or ought to be, beneath you.
Richard,
RE: your September 27, 2011 7:48 AM comments
You wrote: “Richard: You've got to be kidding me. What does a California math website have to do with programs advanced by the Kentucky Department of Education?”
Well, for starters let me point out that our first education commissioner, Thomas Boysen, came to us from California, as your friend Professor William Ellis points out in his book.
Boysen brought a lot of California-based ideas with him.
So, people from California actually could be a great source of information about problems with early 1990s education initiatives transplanted to here in Kentucky.
Also, I guess you are not reading my comments or my reports. You wrote: “I spent many years in Kentucky schools, and never, not once, was there a KDE program by the name you claim.”
I never claimed there was a specific program – like Investigations in Mathematics, for example – named fuzzy math. It’s a generic term for a group of philosophies that inspired a number of programs like Investigations (also known as TERK in some quarters, I believe). Please go to my post on September 26, 2011 12:07 PM.
Also, here is an extract (minus an endnote reference number) from page 45 of my report, “KERA (1990-2010): What Have We Learned.” (on line here: http://www.freedomkentucky.org/images/8/86/Dick%27s_KERA_report._final_with_cover.pdf).
Your readers might want to read my comments about fuzzy math for themselves.
“One year before KERA’s passage, the National Council for Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM)released a document with a model math curriculum, “Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics” (1989). Heavily influenced by Progressive Educators, this document would spawn a large number of math programs that soon earned derisive nicknames like “Fuzzy Math” as parents and better trained math educators in both the public school system and colleges were exposed to the resulting curriculums.”
Clearly, I do not present fuzzy math as a specific KDE program.
By the way, I won’t dispute that the term fuzzy math is “pejorative.” When our 8th grade NAEP math results look as bad as they do, the term is warranted. For years K to 12 educators who pushed these bad ideas about teaching math (including pushing them down the throats of many of our math teachers who knew better) refused to listen to college level mathematicians and experts from business and industry who use math in their work every day. We lost a major portion of a full generation or more of kids in Kentucky who didn’t get the math skills they will need in our rapidly-getting-more-complex world.
Richard D. what facts are crooked?
Richard: In your report about KERA you cite “major programs [that] failed under KERA. Included on that list of KERA programs is at least one, which you call “Fuzzy Math” that did not exist in KERA. That is straight-up, intellectually dishonest.
Your attempt to justify it by saying that Tom Boysen came from California is completely lame. So are your quotes from other sources. None of your attempts at justification can turn Fuzzy Math into a KERA program. It never was. If it had been I would have known it.
Suppose I were to begin collecting anti-BIPPS quotes from Susan Ohanian, or someone else, and then claim that her allegations were true of BIPPS because of some set of characteristics. Maybe she has called y’all some derisive name I could pick up and use to denigrate the organization. Do you really think that’s fair?
It is not fair. It is not research. What it is, is politics.
September 28, 2011 4:35 PM: See my response to September 25, 2011 1:56 PM: above. That commenter may have meant well, but he or she didn’t get much correct.
Thank you again for speaking up, For standing up to some of these people who would destroy our schools and turn us into a theocracy or, worse, turnm our public schools into privately mangaed schools witha business mentality.
But, if I may ask a familial question. Are you not somehow related to Dr. Boysen? I thought he was your wife's father.... If you are related, even by marriage, what did you think of the image portayed of Dr. Boysen in the History of Kentucky? A fair appraisal?
Ha! That's a good one.
Actually, my wife's ex is a banker, named "Boisen." But she used to be asked if she was married to Tom with some frequency in the early 90s. Tom would likely be disappointed to be mistaken as her father.
At the time, I didn't have much of an interest in analyzing Boysen's administration. I did not know him well. I was just beginning to study policy. I will confess that I wanted to strangle him on occasion - mostly when he would explain away KERA's difficult implementation by saying we were building the airplane while we flew it. Actually, that may have been uncharitable of me. I was up to my hips in alligators with the implementation of KERA and was focused on my own problems while he was trying to implement what was arguably the most comprehensive state school reform movement in American history. I probably should have cut him some slack but I felt we were left with no redress for issues that we thought were hurting the schools. In those days, anyone who spoke up was branded some kind of laggard. Actually, the Herald-Leader called us "dinosaurs" as I recall. I found that very motivational.
We opposed the primary program pretty openly and had serious problems with KIRIS testing (mostly that it wouldn't hold still - we lacked a curriculum and KDE changed the test annually).
I don't recall that Ellis said a whole lot about Boysen. He quoted C-J's David Hawpe saying that he was not a Kentucky kind of guy, which is true enough, but I'm not quite sure exactly what that means. Boysen was pushing a lot of policy change and probably was the kind of person Kentucky needed in the beginning.
Richard,
You got the quote wrong. It's "Fuzzy math", not "Fuzzy Math." The absence of the capital on math was intentional, and explained in the body of the report.
I guess you didn't read the body of the report, as I said before.
I did make one assumption I probably shouldn't have. The term fuzzy math was so widely used and understood by the time I wrote my KERA report that I didn't think it would lead to the confusion you are trying to manufacture for it.
Oh! A lower case "m"!?
That's your defense now?
Let's see...
* it was a California website that came up with fuzzy math
* Tom Boysen was from California
* other people didn't like whatever the California website was complaining about either
* but your use of a lower case "m" keeps your claim that Fuzzy math was a KDE program from being dishonest?
Sorry. ...not buying it.
As for how closely I read the report...well, not very closely.
But I hope you'll give me a break on that. I immediately saw the false fuzzy math claim. That was quickly followed by your complete misunderstanding of the nature of Progressive Education and I knew I was was wasting my time.
You even went so far as to claim that mathematics portfolios were "the first major Progressive Education fad" (note your use of capital letters) as if Francis Parker invented math portfolios!???
FYI, the progressive education movement ended somewhere around 1950, a full four decades before I ever heard of math portfolios. And I was not big fans of the math portfolios either, but your claim is simply inaccurate. Claims like this from your report are a disservice to those of your readers who count on your for accurate information.
I can appreciate your zeal, however...no doubt the result of your politically-motivated effort to attack anything with the word progressive in it. But apparently, if the word "progressive" is not even there, you are willing to put it there.
Richard,
You wrote:
"FYI, the progressive education movement ended somewhere around 1950."
It's remarkable how many people don't agree with that.
Google it.
For example: http://www.alfiekohn.org/teaching/progressive.htm
Why did Alfie Kohn write about progressive education in 2008 in a current sense if it died out in the 50's????
The truth is that progressive education theories are very much alive today, with some schools recently making claims they are outstanding because they follow progressive education theories. e.g.
http://www.tcslj.org/page.cfm?p=21
I am well aware that the word progressive is still in use. But I’ll bet a nickel Kohn didn’t capitalize it, like you did; unless, of course, he is writing about the movement.
Post a Comment