The House Education Committee will hold a second hearing on HB 151, "Chronic Absenteeism Amendments," on March 1st at 4:00. If you emailed the members of the Committee before, please do it again. If you didn't email before, please do it NOW!
If you don't understand why adding the category of "chronic absenteeism" to schools' AYP reporting requirements is a bad thing, read my post about it: Absenteeism: When Is It Actually a Problem? Here is the post with my follow-up thoughts after yesterday's hearing: HB 151 - "Chronic Absenteeism" Bill - Held in Committee.
"Freedom is lost gradually from an uninterested, uninformed, and uninvolved people." -Thomas Jefferson
Thursday, February 28, 2013
Wednesday, February 27, 2013
HB 151 - "Chronic Absenteeism" Bill - Held in Committee
HB 151, the "Chronic Absenteeism" bill, was heard in the House Education Committee today. The Committee chose to hold the bill, for which I thank them.
Representative Joel Briscoe - the bill's sponsor - introduced it, followed by 2 members of the public speaking in support of it (representatives from Voices for Utah Children and United Way), and 3 speaking against (Wendy Hart, myself, and a representative from the Eagle Forum.)
Those who support adding chronic absenteeism to the list of requirements for AYP reports have the best of intentions. They hope that by tracking attendance rates, schools will be able to increase attendance rates, both in the early grades and later grades. They hope that by increasing attendance rates they can improve student achievement and graduation rates.
But their arguments are a bit confusing. They say that their goal is to increase attendance; but on the other hand, they say all they want to do is report the numbers to help local schools. Merely reporting these numbers won't do anything to change them, so what is the point in reporting these numbers if there is no intention to do anything with the data?
They freely acknowledge that many of the kids who miss a lot of school have no problems with mastering the material. In fact, several members of the Committee, and the sponsor himself, stated that they would have been included in this new statistic if it had been reported when they were in school. But while supporters acknowledge this, they still seems comfortable with lumping all absences together for reporting purposes.
Which leads me back to my original post about the implications of adding the category of "chronic absenteeism" to AYP reports. If the state agrees to track chronic absenteeism, it is agreeing that ALL absences are bad and need to be reduced. In order to reduce them, ALL kids with lots of absences will be targeted. There's no way to spare the accomplished athletes, the kids blessed to travel abroad with family, the kids who struggle with health, and so forth.
Although Rep. Briscoe stated that there are no penalties attached to the reporting, there are penalties. They are inherent in the AYP structure, which requires certain levels to be met in order to retain funding. And ultimately, if the hope is to improve educational outcomes by improving attendance, further penalties would of necessity come in later legislative sessions in order to meet the stated goal of the supporters of this bill - to increase attendance rates.
It would take pages and pages to list the reasons this approach - while well-meaning - is wrong. The heart of the matter is that it fails to distinguish between excused and unexcused absences, and in so doing, it fails to honor the basic right of a parent to make decisions for her own child. There will be pressure on schools to reduce not just truancy - unexcused absences - but all absences of any kind.
A better approach to helping kids whose poor attendance contributes to their struggling in school, would be for schools to keep track of kids who are truant - missing school without their parents' permission - and working with that population specifically. Even this approach should be handled entirely at the local level, where the principals and teachers personally know the families involved. This is a great level for non-profits to get involved with their services.
Reporting all absences to the state in a lump total would open the door for serious encroachment by the state on personal family decisions. It would shift the culture of this state in the wrong direction. The House Education Committee made a good decision by holding this bill in committee. It should remain there.
Further Information:
Absenteeism: When Is It Actually a Problem?
The Nebraska Family Forum
Here you will find the overview of what Nebraska - one of the six states that tracks this new category of chronic absenteeism (they call it "excessive absenteeism") - is doing to reduce its newly-created "problem." This is the link to an overview of its "excessive absenteeism" law. Down the right-hand column you will find dozens of stories of families caught up in the well-meaning attempt to "help" them, when they didn't need any help.
What You Can Do:
Email the members of the House Education Committee and thank them for holding HB 151 in committee.
Francis Gibson<fgibson@le.utah.gov>
Representative Joel Briscoe - the bill's sponsor - introduced it, followed by 2 members of the public speaking in support of it (representatives from Voices for Utah Children and United Way), and 3 speaking against (Wendy Hart, myself, and a representative from the Eagle Forum.)
| Young athletes often miss a lot of school |
Those who support adding chronic absenteeism to the list of requirements for AYP reports have the best of intentions. They hope that by tracking attendance rates, schools will be able to increase attendance rates, both in the early grades and later grades. They hope that by increasing attendance rates they can improve student achievement and graduation rates.
But their arguments are a bit confusing. They say that their goal is to increase attendance; but on the other hand, they say all they want to do is report the numbers to help local schools. Merely reporting these numbers won't do anything to change them, so what is the point in reporting these numbers if there is no intention to do anything with the data?
They freely acknowledge that many of the kids who miss a lot of school have no problems with mastering the material. In fact, several members of the Committee, and the sponsor himself, stated that they would have been included in this new statistic if it had been reported when they were in school. But while supporters acknowledge this, they still seems comfortable with lumping all absences together for reporting purposes.
Which leads me back to my original post about the implications of adding the category of "chronic absenteeism" to AYP reports. If the state agrees to track chronic absenteeism, it is agreeing that ALL absences are bad and need to be reduced. In order to reduce them, ALL kids with lots of absences will be targeted. There's no way to spare the accomplished athletes, the kids blessed to travel abroad with family, the kids who struggle with health, and so forth.
Although Rep. Briscoe stated that there are no penalties attached to the reporting, there are penalties. They are inherent in the AYP structure, which requires certain levels to be met in order to retain funding. And ultimately, if the hope is to improve educational outcomes by improving attendance, further penalties would of necessity come in later legislative sessions in order to meet the stated goal of the supporters of this bill - to increase attendance rates.
 |
| Travel - the ULTIMATE education! |
It would take pages and pages to list the reasons this approach - while well-meaning - is wrong. The heart of the matter is that it fails to distinguish between excused and unexcused absences, and in so doing, it fails to honor the basic right of a parent to make decisions for her own child. There will be pressure on schools to reduce not just truancy - unexcused absences - but all absences of any kind.
A better approach to helping kids whose poor attendance contributes to their struggling in school, would be for schools to keep track of kids who are truant - missing school without their parents' permission - and working with that population specifically. Even this approach should be handled entirely at the local level, where the principals and teachers personally know the families involved. This is a great level for non-profits to get involved with their services.
Reporting all absences to the state in a lump total would open the door for serious encroachment by the state on personal family decisions. It would shift the culture of this state in the wrong direction. The House Education Committee made a good decision by holding this bill in committee. It should remain there.
Further Information:
Absenteeism: When Is It Actually a Problem?
The Nebraska Family Forum
Here you will find the overview of what Nebraska - one of the six states that tracks this new category of chronic absenteeism (they call it "excessive absenteeism") - is doing to reduce its newly-created "problem." This is the link to an overview of its "excessive absenteeism" law. Down the right-hand column you will find dozens of stories of families caught up in the well-meaning attempt to "help" them, when they didn't need any help.
What You Can Do:
Email the members of the House Education Committee and thank them for holding HB 151 in committee.
Francis Gibson<fgibson@le.utah.gov>
V. Lowry Snow<vlsnow@le.utah.gov>
Patrice Arent<parent@le.utah.gov>
Rich Cunningham<rcunningham@le.utah.gov>
Steve Eliason<seliason@le.utah.gov>
Gregory Hughes<greghughes@le.utah.gov>
Bradley G. Last<blast@le.utah.gov>
David Lifferth<dlifferth@le.utah.gov>
Daniel McCay<dmccay@le.utah.gov>
Carol Spackman Moss<csmoss@le.utah.gov>
Jim Nielson<jimnielson@le.utah.gov>
Val Peterson<vpeterson@le.utah.gov>
Marie H. Poulson<mariepoulson@le.utah.gov>
Kraig Powell<kraigpowell@le.utah.gov>
Dean Sanpei<dsanpei@le.utah.gov>
Kevin Stratton<kstratton@le.utah.gov>
If you have any personal stories about how this might affect your family, or how a related law in another state has already affected your family or another family that you know, please email them to me at autumnfcook@gmail.com.
Tuesday, February 26, 2013
"Chronic Absenteeism" Bill to Be Heard Tomorrow!
The Utah House Education Committee will be holding a hearing on LB151 ("Chronic Absenteeism") tomorrow at 2:00 p.m.
This bill will require schools to report on a new category called "chronic absenteeism." It will put pressure on schools to reduce absences, but it makes no distinction between excused and unexcused absences.
This means that schools will have to pressure even families' whose kids have all excused absences to alter their personal family decisions about absences.
This is a BAD bill. For a full discussion of the dynamics surrounding it, see my previous post: Absenteeism: When Is It Actually a Problem?
Please adjust your plans to attend the hearing tomorrow at 2:00. If you can't attend, please call or send an email to the members of the House Education Committee. The list of members is here, and below.
Francis Gibson<fgibson@le.utah.gov>
Contact me if you would like further information: autumnfcook@gmail.com.
This bill will require schools to report on a new category called "chronic absenteeism." It will put pressure on schools to reduce absences, but it makes no distinction between excused and unexcused absences.
This means that schools will have to pressure even families' whose kids have all excused absences to alter their personal family decisions about absences.
This is a BAD bill. For a full discussion of the dynamics surrounding it, see my previous post: Absenteeism: When Is It Actually a Problem?
Please adjust your plans to attend the hearing tomorrow at 2:00. If you can't attend, please call or send an email to the members of the House Education Committee. The list of members is here, and below.
Francis Gibson<fgibson@le.utah.gov>
V. Lowry
Snow<vlsnow@le.utah.gov>
Patrice
Arent<parent@le.utah.gov>
Rich
Cunningham<rcunningham@le.utah.gov>
Steve
Eliason<seliason@le.utah.gov>
Gregory
Hughes<greghughes@le.utah.gov>
Bradley G.
Last<blast@le.utah.gov>
David
Lifferth<dlifferth@le.utah.gov>
Daniel McCay<dmccay@le.utah.gov>
Carol
Spackman Moss<csmoss@le.utah.gov>
Jim
Nielson<jimnielson@le.utah.gov>
Val
Peterson<vpeterson@le.utah.gov>
Marie H. Poulson<mariepoulson@le.utah.gov>
Kraig
Powell<kraigpowell@le.utah.gov>
Dean
Sanpei<dsanpei@le.utah.gov>
Kevin
Stratton<kstratton@le.utah.gov>
Contact me if you would like further information: autumnfcook@gmail.com.
Friday, February 22, 2013
Absenteeism: When Is It Actually a Problem?
A very concerning bill was introduced in the Utah House yesterday.
HB151, "Chronic Absenteeism Amendments," looks innocuous on a cursory reading. But if you put the pieces of this puzzle together, you will see the picture of a culture shifting in the wrong direction.
The bill defines "chronically absent" as "a student who is absent 10% of a school year"; it defines "absent" as "a student in kindergarten through grade 12 assigned to a class or class period who fails to attend the entire class or class period"; and it requires the State Board of Education to report the number and percentage of students who were chronically absent on each school's AYP (Annual Yearly Progress) report.
So what's the problem with that?
This bill doesn't distinguish between excused and unexcused absences. It treats a kid who leaves school half an hour early with his mother to go to an orthodontist appointment (that's right - if you miss 30 minutes you're counted absent for the whole day), the same as a kid who skipped the whole day to hang out on the corner and sell drugs. If this bill were to become law, it would begin a major shift away from Utah's current system of recording absences, a system which honors a parent's authority to decide when her child should miss school.
This shift would put pressure on schools to improve their attendance numbers. Schools that fall below certain levels on their AYP reports have to improve performance in those categories in order to regain certain funding. With this statistic added to the AYP report, schools would come under pressure to improve their attendance numbers, even if they aren't having any issues with academic achievement.
Even if the vast majority of its students' "absences" were attributable to entirely excused reasons - illness, club sports, youth leadership conferences, musical and dance performance opportunities, traveling to visit a college prospect, traveling with family, an hour for a doctor's or dentist's or orthodontist's appointment - a school would have to begin pressuring families to cut back on absences.
While advocates for reducing all absences point to studies indicating that students who miss a lot of school often fail or drop out, they make the huge mistake of asserting causation, when these two datapoints are only in a relationship of correlation. Even though kids who fail or drop out are typically absent a lot, absence does not cause failure or dropping out.
Many of the very best students miss a lot of school because they are also active in other areas of their lives. Many good, steady students miss a lot of school because of chronic illness. But they keep up with their work and maintain communication with their teachers, and they are in no way in danger of falling through the cracks.
Utah should not pass a law that would inevitably restrict these students from pursuing their dreams, restrict parents from making wise choices about the rest needed by a chronically ill child, and shift the decision-making about what's best for an individual child from his parents to the state.
If the state wants to track unexcused absences - actual cases of skipping - that could be beneficial. But requiring schools to report all absences, and counting even a fraction of a missed day as a full day of absence, will put pressure on schools to reduce every absence, even positive, beneficial ones. The natural consequence of putting so much pressure on schools to improve their attendance numbers will be that schools will go back to the legislature asking for legal means to coerce parents to send their kids to school.
And that coercive pressure will, of course, be felt heavily by Utah families. The presumption that parents know what's best for their children will begin to evaporate as the assumption that the state knows what's best for children (being in school no matter what!) takes its place.
This new category of "chronic absenteeism" should not be added to the requirements for AYP reports. HB151 should be vigorously opposed.
Further Information:
HB151 - Chronic Absenteeism Amendments
1 in 7 kids in Utah is chronically absent - NoDropOuts.org
This article includes a link to the study by the University of Utah's Education Policy Center that examined this issue. Read it in light of the considerations I've discussed in this article, including the many legitimate and even beneficial reasons for being absent, and the push by some segments of society to wrest authority over children from parents and give it to the state. The article itself raises the specter of a potential future push for state-funded after-school programs.
What You Can Do:
Contact your Utah state representative and share your concerns. Find your representative here.
The bill has not yet been assigned to a committee for a hearing - it's still in the Rules Committee. If you are interested, you can follow this blog to receive an update when the bill gets assigned to a committee so you can know which house members to contact, and when a hearing might be held.
HB151, "Chronic Absenteeism Amendments," looks innocuous on a cursory reading. But if you put the pieces of this puzzle together, you will see the picture of a culture shifting in the wrong direction.
So what's the problem with that?
This bill doesn't distinguish between excused and unexcused absences. It treats a kid who leaves school half an hour early with his mother to go to an orthodontist appointment (that's right - if you miss 30 minutes you're counted absent for the whole day), the same as a kid who skipped the whole day to hang out on the corner and sell drugs. If this bill were to become law, it would begin a major shift away from Utah's current system of recording absences, a system which honors a parent's authority to decide when her child should miss school.
This shift would put pressure on schools to improve their attendance numbers. Schools that fall below certain levels on their AYP reports have to improve performance in those categories in order to regain certain funding. With this statistic added to the AYP report, schools would come under pressure to improve their attendance numbers, even if they aren't having any issues with academic achievement.
While advocates for reducing all absences point to studies indicating that students who miss a lot of school often fail or drop out, they make the huge mistake of asserting causation, when these two datapoints are only in a relationship of correlation. Even though kids who fail or drop out are typically absent a lot, absence does not cause failure or dropping out.
Many of the very best students miss a lot of school because they are also active in other areas of their lives. Many good, steady students miss a lot of school because of chronic illness. But they keep up with their work and maintain communication with their teachers, and they are in no way in danger of falling through the cracks.
Utah should not pass a law that would inevitably restrict these students from pursuing their dreams, restrict parents from making wise choices about the rest needed by a chronically ill child, and shift the decision-making about what's best for an individual child from his parents to the state.
If the state wants to track unexcused absences - actual cases of skipping - that could be beneficial. But requiring schools to report all absences, and counting even a fraction of a missed day as a full day of absence, will put pressure on schools to reduce every absence, even positive, beneficial ones. The natural consequence of putting so much pressure on schools to improve their attendance numbers will be that schools will go back to the legislature asking for legal means to coerce parents to send their kids to school.
And that coercive pressure will, of course, be felt heavily by Utah families. The presumption that parents know what's best for their children will begin to evaporate as the assumption that the state knows what's best for children (being in school no matter what!) takes its place.
This new category of "chronic absenteeism" should not be added to the requirements for AYP reports. HB151 should be vigorously opposed.
Further Information:
HB151 - Chronic Absenteeism Amendments
1 in 7 kids in Utah is chronically absent - NoDropOuts.org
This article includes a link to the study by the University of Utah's Education Policy Center that examined this issue. Read it in light of the considerations I've discussed in this article, including the many legitimate and even beneficial reasons for being absent, and the push by some segments of society to wrest authority over children from parents and give it to the state. The article itself raises the specter of a potential future push for state-funded after-school programs.
What You Can Do:
Contact your Utah state representative and share your concerns. Find your representative here.
The bill has not yet been assigned to a committee for a hearing - it's still in the Rules Committee. If you are interested, you can follow this blog to receive an update when the bill gets assigned to a committee so you can know which house members to contact, and when a hearing might be held.
Wednesday, February 13, 2013
German-style Education in Utah?
He said, "Right now, countries like Germany focus on graduating their high school students with the equivalent of a technical degree from one of our community colleges, so those German kids, they're ready for a job when they graduate high school...We need to give every American student opportunities like this."
It was bold, because he laid out his vision for education in very clear terms. It was surprising, because he's usually been more cautiously obscure about his intentions.
For months, opponents of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) have been trying to show people that CCSS is being used by the Federal government to expand its role in education. The president helped us paint that picture last night.
Most states adopted the CCSS as part of the first Race to the Top (RTT) program, which Obama initiated in July 2009. He praised the results of the original program last night, saying, "Four years ago, we started Race to the Top, a competition that convinced almost every state to develop smarter curricula and higher standards."
Then, in conjunction with his assertion that he wants the U.S. system to work like Germany's, Obma proceeded to announce a second RTT program.
It appears that not only were the opponents of the CCSS right about increased Federal involvement, but that it goes even further than we've said. Based on Obama's bold statement last night, the current thrust of education reform is toward a centrally-managed education system that assigns kids to tracks - like Germany. And a centrally-managed education system is part one of two parts to a centrally-managed economy, the other part being high government regulation of businesses.
How will this affect kids (and by extension, businesses) in Utah? That all depends on how our legislators and elected officials in the executive branch respond to the money that will be offered, and the nice-sounding promises that will be made.
We will either join the movement toward a German-style education system, lured by the siren song of educational utopia and the millions of dollars in the new RTT competition; or stand for basic American freedom, say "No" to the money, preserve our free markets, and protect our kids' basic right to choose their own destiny, rather than be told what they are "best-suited for."
Obama's statement was very clear: he wants our education system to look like Germany's, where the test you take about the time you are 10 years old determines your future.
We in Utah need to be just as clear: we want no part of this system. While there are a few aspects of its system which are perhaps worthy of emulation, its disregard for individual liberty and undermining of the free market by projecting what jobs will be needed and slotting kids for them is not. We want no part of the Federal government's promises of educational Eden, "if we'll just let them be more involved and share our kids' personal data with them."
Education is not just about producing workers, which seems to be Obama's attitude. It is about acquiring knowledge to enrich one's understanding of the world, one's appreciation for beauty, one's understanding of the deep truths of humanity. Acquiring skills that enable one to seek employment in the occupation of his or her choice is an inevitable consequence of teaching for the former purposes.
And education is best handled entirely at the most local level. Utah's elected officials should turn down the RTT bait, which will draw us into deeper dependence upon and accountability to the Federal government. They must remember and honor the basic principles of the American way of life while they formulate ways to strengthen our educational system.
One final item worthy of note: homeschooling is illegal in Germany. Does Obama aspire to imitate this feature as well?
Further Information:
An overview of the German system
http://library.thinkquest.org/26576/schoolpage.htm
A comparison of education systems: Germany v. U.S.
http://sitemaker.umich.edu/klein.356/tracking
Praise for the German system
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-07-19/german-vocational-training-model-offers-alternative-path-to-youth
Transcript of the State of the Union address
http://www.upi.com/blog/2013/02/12/State-of-the-Union-Full-transcript/9081360720324/
What You Can Do:
Contact your state representative and senator and tell them you're concerned about the push to institute a German-style education system in the U.S., and that you want them to oppose bills that will move us in that direction.
Contact your state school board member and tell them you're concerned about the push to institute a German-style education system in the U.S. Tell them that you want them to tell the State Office of Education not to apply for the new RTT grant, and get us out of Common Core.
Contact the governor and tell him you're concerned about the push to institute a German-style education system in the U.S., and that you want Utah to get out of Common Core and not participate in the new RTT grant competition.
Most states adopted the CCSS as part of the first Race to the Top (RTT) program, which Obama initiated in July 2009. He praised the results of the original program last night, saying, "Four years ago, we started Race to the Top, a competition that convinced almost every state to develop smarter curricula and higher standards."
Then, in conjunction with his assertion that he wants the U.S. system to work like Germany's, Obma proceeded to announce a second RTT program.
It appears that not only were the opponents of the CCSS right about increased Federal involvement, but that it goes even further than we've said. Based on Obama's bold statement last night, the current thrust of education reform is toward a centrally-managed education system that assigns kids to tracks - like Germany. And a centrally-managed education system is part one of two parts to a centrally-managed economy, the other part being high government regulation of businesses.
How will this affect kids (and by extension, businesses) in Utah? That all depends on how our legislators and elected officials in the executive branch respond to the money that will be offered, and the nice-sounding promises that will be made.
We will either join the movement toward a German-style education system, lured by the siren song of educational utopia and the millions of dollars in the new RTT competition; or stand for basic American freedom, say "No" to the money, preserve our free markets, and protect our kids' basic right to choose their own destiny, rather than be told what they are "best-suited for."
Obama's statement was very clear: he wants our education system to look like Germany's, where the test you take about the time you are 10 years old determines your future.
 |
| German Education Tracks |
We in Utah need to be just as clear: we want no part of this system. While there are a few aspects of its system which are perhaps worthy of emulation, its disregard for individual liberty and undermining of the free market by projecting what jobs will be needed and slotting kids for them is not. We want no part of the Federal government's promises of educational Eden, "if we'll just let them be more involved and share our kids' personal data with them."
Education is not just about producing workers, which seems to be Obama's attitude. It is about acquiring knowledge to enrich one's understanding of the world, one's appreciation for beauty, one's understanding of the deep truths of humanity. Acquiring skills that enable one to seek employment in the occupation of his or her choice is an inevitable consequence of teaching for the former purposes.
And education is best handled entirely at the most local level. Utah's elected officials should turn down the RTT bait, which will draw us into deeper dependence upon and accountability to the Federal government. They must remember and honor the basic principles of the American way of life while they formulate ways to strengthen our educational system.
One final item worthy of note: homeschooling is illegal in Germany. Does Obama aspire to imitate this feature as well?
Further Information:
An overview of the German system
http://library.thinkquest.org/26576/schoolpage.htm
A comparison of education systems: Germany v. U.S.
http://sitemaker.umich.edu/klein.356/tracking
Praise for the German system
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-07-19/german-vocational-training-model-offers-alternative-path-to-youth
Transcript of the State of the Union address
http://www.upi.com/blog/2013/02/12/State-of-the-Union-Full-transcript/9081360720324/
What You Can Do:
Contact your state representative and senator and tell them you're concerned about the push to institute a German-style education system in the U.S., and that you want them to oppose bills that will move us in that direction.
Contact your state school board member and tell them you're concerned about the push to institute a German-style education system in the U.S. Tell them that you want them to tell the State Office of Education not to apply for the new RTT grant, and get us out of Common Core.
Contact the governor and tell him you're concerned about the push to institute a German-style education system in the U.S., and that you want Utah to get out of Common Core and not participate in the new RTT grant competition.
Friday, February 8, 2013
Where Does it Stop?
So it's not very surprising that there's a bill in the Utah legislature that aims to make the jump from prohibiting people from smoking in public places, to prohibiting them from smoking within the confines of their own personal property. That bill is HB0013, which would prohibit adults from smoking in a car when a child under the age of 16 is present.
We all know that exposure to smoke is bad for children. But that doesn't justify the overreach of this bill, which aims to tell people what they can't do in the confines of their own property. Being inside one's vehicle is much like being inside one's own home. Where will this desire to reach into people's personal lives and tell them what to do - however good it may be - stop?
If the state can get away with making it illegal to smoke in a person's own vehicle with their own children or their friends present, what's to stop it from doing the same in people's homes? Far more secondhand exposure occurs in homes than in cars.
What about some things that are closer to home for most Utahns? Watching too much TV, playing too many video games, eating Cheetos, spending too much time texting, and not getting enough sleep are also bad for children. Should the government make laws to regulate these behaviors as well?
Isn't it possible that this camel's nose could make way for the rest of him? I contend that it's likely, given the current political climate, in which our freedoms are disappearing faster than a late spring snow.
Does anyone want young people to be in cars where adults are smoking? No, of course not. But does anyone want the state of Utah to be able to tell individuals what to do with their own property and children? No. The latter is the greater threat. While smoking in the presence of children is bad, it's a much greater offense to force someone not to do it.
 |
| Catharine Littlefield Greene |
General Nathanael Greene, said, "We all know that anything which is evil and harmful when done outside government is equally evil and harmful when done through government."
That is to say, if it's wrong for an individual to demand $45 from his neighbor when she smokes in the car with her kids, it is just as wrong for a government to do so.
There is virtually no freedom that can't be legislated away by a desire to protect people from themselves and their bad choices. This is even more true when applied to the desire to protect other people's children from their parents' bad choices.
We have to be willing to protect others' freedoms to do what we feel is stupid or bad, if we want our freedoms respected and protected. This bill should be opposed. It is the camel's nose.
Further Information:
The text of HB0013
Salt Lake Tribune: 'Utah bill to ban smoking in cars with kids gets committee approval'
Deseret News: 'Representative again hopes bill will snuff out smoking in cars with children'
What To Do:
Contact your state representative and state senator and ask them to vote NO on this bill. All it takes is a short couple of sentences. Include the bill name and number, HB0013, 'Protection of Children Riding in Motor Vehicles.' Find your representative here.
Share this blog with others and tell them to do the same. This is the camel's nose.
Monday, February 4, 2013
Common Core is Just Standards?
KSL helped add to the evidence last Thursday with this article, New Ways of Teaching Math Focus on Concepts, not Just Memorization. David Smith, the elementary mathematics specialist at the Utah State Office of Education (USOE), is quoted as saying, "The questions parents have about math instruction changing, they are absolutely right, it is changing."
What? Then why have we been told that the Common Core is just standards?
Apart from the frustrating doublespeak - on the one hand, it's just standards, not orders to teachers on how to teach them; and on the other, "math instruction [is] changing" - the way in which it's changing will not help most kids learn math any better. In fact, it will undermine students' ability to do and therefore understand math.
What's involved in this "new way" of teaching math? A teacher gives the kids a problem, and lets them try to figure out how to solve it, often in groups. Even though the students may eventually be taught the traditional algorithm - which always works in finding the answer, which is the real point of math - students are often required to show several different ways of getting the same answer.
There is no research or evidence showing the benefits of this kind of instruction for elementary and secondary students. Even so, it's fair to think that this may be a great approach for some students.
But for others, it's a disaster. With this approach, a child who prefers math to reading and writing is forced to do even more reading and writing for their math assignments. If you get the chance to look at your child's Common Core-aligned math book, you will see far more words than numbers, very few problems to solve (plenty of research points to the fact that repetition is essential for mastering a mathematical concept), and requirements for the students to write actual sentence and paragraph answers for what would be easily answered with a simple number sentence.
The U.S. put a man on the moon with engineers who learned math the traditional way. It seems we're getting a little carried away with the "new is always better" mindset.
Several years ago, this "new way" of teaching math was widespread in Alpine School District. Kids in 7th grade didn't know their times tables, 10th graders couldn't do long division, and parents got upset. It's widely known that the high number of charter schools in the Alpine District are a direct result of parents wanting their kids to have traditional direct math instruction. They know that kids who've experienced direct instruction can do the math, even if they can't fully explain it, while kids who've experienced this "exploratory" math may be able to explain it, but often can't get the right answer.
Why would the state require teachers to teach in this way? Isn't that outside the scope of standards? Shouldn't the parents and teachers in any given school be able to decide how they want to handle teaching methods?
In a touch of ironic commentary, the KSL article quotes two owners of math tutoring businesses, who offer their services to the parents whose kids are struggling with this "new" math. I think math tutoring businesses serve a purpose, and I'm glad they're there. But I don't think the state should be increasing their business by mandating an ineffective teaching approach which kids can't understand and parents can't help them with, because it's "new."
Further Information:
KSL Article
New Ways of Teaching Math Focus on Concepts, not Just Memorization
USOE Instructional Materials Review of Saxon Math
Instructional Materials Search Detail Course: Grade 4
Saxon Math is a popular approach to teaching math which employs a lot of direct instruction (the teacher tells the student how to do the problem) and repetition. It revisits concepts and builds upon them lesson after lesson and year after year, which, according to this review from the Curriculum Department at the State Office, is not desirable because the Federal "National Math Panel" has said that concepts should not be revisited. This review highlights how Common Core does indeed get into dictating teaching approaches.
What To Do:
Contact your representative on the State Board of Education and let them know how you feel about teachers being required to teach a certain way under the new "Utah Core," and how you feel about this "new" approach to math in particular.
Find your State Board member here.
Contact your local School Board members and tell them how you feel about these same things.
Educate yourself on the debate about teaching approaches for math, and if you've been feeling frustrated with what you're seeing with Common Core, don't think you're the only one. Heed that sense that it's not quite what you'd like, and talk to your kids' teachers and principals. While they'll probably tell you why it's a great approach - a lot of time and money has been spent in training them how to teach CC (another piece of evidence that it's not just about standards), and colleges of education have been teaching this approach to young teachers-in-training for years - they need to hear from involved parents when things aren't working for them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)