The News in Connecticut

Connecticut has been plagued by nothing but bad news these days on the education front. In case you missed it, here's a quick re-cap on Throwing Curves.

Throwing Curves: New Posts

While Catherine is away, check out new posts at Throwing Curves.

Why Connecticut Schools are Lagging

Throwing Curves has a new post on Why Connecticut Schools are Lagging. For those of us that follow CT education policy, this comes as no surprise. Still, it is nice to see new news sources picking up on what we've know so long.

Connecticut May Make Changes to MBR

One of the more bizarre aspects of funding schools in Connecticut is the "Minimum Budget Requirement" -- a law that requires towns to budget AT LEAST as much for the schools as they did the year before, no exceptions. The penalty? For every $1 drop in spending, the State takes away $2 in town grants.

This year, a very small change to the MBR is being considered at the State legislature. It isn't enough, but it is a start.

Throwing Curves has a new blog post up on the changes to Connecticut's Minimum Budget Requirement - Small Changes to Town Education Budgets May Be Possible.

Science Teachers Should Know The Content They Teach

The National Council on Teacher Quality finds the level of science content knowledge demonstrated by teachers in many states to be unacceptably low. Connecticut received the lowest score possible: a red light. You can read more at my blog post here:

Connecticut's High School Science Teacher Certification Found Wanting

CT's Education Budget Crisis

Last year, in an effort to win Race to the Top money, Connecticut passed a flurry of new laws affecting education. One of these added new high school graduation requirements. Now, having failed to snag any of those federal dollars, CT faces the difficult prospect of paying for the reforms they committed to. One idea is to make them voluntary and allow towns to vote with their feet on implementation. Read the blog post here:

New High School Graduation Requirements -- Should they be Voluntary?

He's Back

I just happened across the Connecticut Academy for Education and a reference to the Algebra I Curriculum Project. You know, just doing my five minutes of Google research and such. Channeling the eternal optimist, I wanted to believe that perhaps there was hope and that CT might finally be on the path to joining the ranks of those states with world-class algebra standards-- or any algebra standards at all for that matter.*

One click led to another and I ended up learning that in December 2008, the CT DOE opened up the bidding process for a curriculum grant for the Connecticut Algebra I Model. They don’t appear to have had an overwhelming response given that of 25 available spaces at the bidder’s conference, only 4 were taken. Four.

Not yet ready to abandon all hope, I trudged on to the winning proposal submitted by the Connecticut Academy for Education folks. I was stopped dead in my tracks when I hit page 8, regarding personnel:

“The Steering Committee includes a diverse group of individuals, respected within the state, nationally, and internationally, who will provide vision and guidance for the work. The committee members are Steve Leinwand…”

Leinwand.

This would be the same Steven Leinwand who in February 1994 said, It’s Time to Abandon Computational Algorithms.

"It's time to recognize that, for many students, real mathematical power, on the one hand, and facility with multidigit, pencil-and-paper computational algorithms, on the other, are mutually exclusive. In fact, it's time to acknowledge that continuing to teach these skills to our students is not only unnecessary, but counterproductive and downright dangerous."

The same Steven Leinwand who in September 1998 sealed our doom with CT Math PIRK. The very man who can take all the credit for our failing math standards -- earning an “F” as well as a place on the list of “states to shun”. His hand in our state standards is glaringly obvious and the result of his handiwork makes it no surprise that 40% of incoming freshman at Central, Eastern, Southern and Western Connecticut state universities are ending up in remedial math. (Courant)

The same Steven Leinwand who made decisions on which math programs recommended by the Department of Education to the tune of billions of edu-dollars, would be rated “exemplary” or “promising” despite having “personal connections with ‘exemplary’ curricula.” (Math Problems) The very programs which have prompted districts such as my own to sink boatloads of taxpayer money into well-hyped and expertly marketed snake-oil.

Yep. He’s back.

He’s crept back into the Connecticut math standards game and that’s a very, very bad thing.

In fact, I'd say it's counterproductive and downright dangerous.


*Not surprisingly, not only does Connecticut not have world class math standards, it seemingly has no standards for Algebra I and II courses at all. (National Mathematics Advisory Panel Final Report: Report of the Task Group on Conceptual Knowledge and Skills- Figure 2)

Connecticut's Curriculum Standards Revision

The State Dept of Ed website has draft curriculum standards posted. If you are a Conn parent or educator, you might want to take a look at what they are doing. I haven't looked through these things carefully, but I want to get the links up here. The letter accompanying the draft standards invites feedback. I don't see why only educators should have fun with this, so please do take a look. The standards will be in draft form until December 2007.

Draft Connecticut Pre-K through 8 Math Standards

Draft Connecticut Pre-K through 8 English Language Standards

There is a Feed Back Form for both draft standards here.

The biggest change to the standards is the inclusion of "grade level expectations." These are fairly specific and are a big improvement over the old standards. For example, in 2nd grade, students should be able to order simple fractions, tell time to the 1/2 hour, and know the calendar months in order.

The standards are clear. They may not be very high, but they are at least clear.

But there are still too many standards. The mile wide inch deep criticism is even more apparent when you look at each of the tasks to be mastered along the way. Still too much pattern recognition, probability, and graphing in the earliest grades and not enough emphasis on automaticity with basic math facts and fluency with fractions, decimals, and percents in later elementary grades. It's there, but there's no focus and no sense of what is most critical. Because of the sheer number of standards and expectations, how is a teacher or school to wade through them all? If they give equal emphasis to everything, they will not master anything.

So a mixed bag, but a step in the right direction. If you have the time to look at these things, you might consider downloading the feedback form and e-mailing it in to the State Dept of Ed.

After all, how often does anybody in education ask for your input?

Parent Report Cards ?

A republican board of ed member in Manchester, Connecticut (not my town) is proposing parent report cards -- giving grades to parents on how well they do at getting involved in their children's education.

Parent Report Cards


Apparently this was tried in Chicago 7 years ago -- and abandoned after 1 year. Hard to believe, but it didn't solve the problems and actually created resentment between parents and teachers. Who could have predicted that?

He said the program would not be punitive, but instead would help the district identify struggling parents who might need support.

They can't identify the struggling parents without grading all of them?

And how do you think that Board will respond when parents demand the right to grade the teachers, administrators and board members?

CMT Scores Slip

The local Connecticut newspaper, the Hartford Courant, is reporting on the most recent CMT test score data, which shows little improvement across the board. The gap between rich and poor, black and white, suburb and innercity persists. Scores are flat or declining, small gains in math statewide.

They made the test easier and gave it later in the year, so why are scores lagging?

Could it be the curriculum? Could it be the instruction? Or should we blame the parents?

If you read to the end to the reader's comments section, you'll notice that teachers seem to be blaming the parents. "If parents don't teach their kids to read, there's nothing we teachers can do about it," is a fair generalization.

But the article has this to say about teacher prep:

"It was the reading scores that drew much of the attention and that could lead to pressure to change the way new teachers are trained. Under state rules, new teachers are required to take only two courses in reading instruction before being licensed, but some educators believe that is not enough."

One superintendent claims that teachers are unprepared to teach literacy and calls it "disgraceful."

It is disgraceful. It's almost as bad as administrators that continue to purchase poorly designed reading instruction programs and force them upon teachers and students alike. Teacher quality is really important, but the choice of curriculum is equally important and we are still struggling with whole language materials in many, many school districts.

CMT Scores Released

The results of the annual Connecticut Mastery Test have been posted online. These scores are the most recent ones from 2007.

I haven't had a chance to comb through. I'm not sure if poking around in the data is all that revealing now that I've learned how incredibly low the bar has been set. From the few items that have been released, this 4th generation of the CMT looks to be the easiest to pass and given far later in the year. A mere 60% correct qualifies a student for "goal" and if you get 70% right, you are considered "advanced."

There is nothing higher than advanced on this barely grade-level exam. If my daughter ever got 70% correct on a grade level test at the end of the year, I doubt I'd applaud her as an advanced student. So what will this test tell us?

But I like the interactive data format the state is using to put the information out there.