Internet at 30,000 feet

Couldn't help myself: I put my money down (9 bucks) for inflight Internet today. I am writing this at 30,000 feet, flying from Chicago to Boston, and working on resources for the adult education persistence category. Earlier I surfed the Web, sent a couple of emails, and very successfully watched Office on Hulu and did a Skype video call. It all worked flawlessly. I suspect Netflix would work fine as well. Though I wished it had been free, not really a bad deal for 9 dollars. Technology continues to amaze this old man.

MARTI @ Chicago

Workshop Link

COABE/ProLiteracy Conference 2010:

Sure-Shot Recipe for Tech Integration Training - Mentoring with a Big Dose of PLC!

Common Core Math Standards and Everyday Mathematics

By Pam Kenney

I spent much of last weekend reading and critiquing the new Common Core Math Standards (K-6 only) for the National Coalition for World Class Math. I must say I was surprised at and pleased with their thoroughness and rigor. My primary assignment was to analyze the standards’ sequence of skills. I had several suggestions to facilitate learning (teaching students to count by 5s and 10s, for example, before requiring them to count money), but for the most part the standards are presented with their delineated skills building on each other from grade to grade in a logical progression. I love the standards that require children to use mental math, the kindergarten one that ensures students are able to begin counting in the middle of a number sequence instead of always starting at 1, and the strong emphasis on understanding the “whys” of math. They require the memorization of math facts (although I’d like to see mastery at earlier grade levels than these standards mandate) and the use of the standard algorithm (again my preference would be for its introduction more quickly after understanding is achieved than it is now). The timetable for the mastery of concepts isn’t as clear as it could be, and I hope that need will be addressed as the comment period continues this month.

As I read the standards, I made an unexpected discovery. From the outset, I began noticing something interesting: Many of the skills and their attendant requirements reflect those taught within the Everyday Mathematics curriculum. At the fourth grade level, for example, standard #6 under “Number – Operations and the Problems They Solve,” states, “Compute products and whole number quotients of two-, three- or four-digit numbers and one-digit numbers, using strategies based on place value, the properties of operations, and/or the inverse relationships between multiplication and division; explain the reasoning used.” EDM is famous for, and often criticized for, the many methods (lattice, partial products, and partial quotients, e.g.) it expects children to learn to facilitate a thorough understanding of the “whys” of multiplication and division. This standard and many others like it throughout the standards document continue that emphasis. The new standards differ from EDM, though, because they include basic fact fluency requirements, the use of the standard algorithm, and at least an attempt to set mastery levels. What is not clear is how much of the spiraling that is peculiar to EDM will be eliminated if they’re adopted, and that is an important facet of the standards that needs to be analyzed.

I have been a critic of the Everyday Mathematics curriculum for years and have written about its shortcomings on this blog several times. However, I’ve amended my position somewhat after working with a fourth grader on her EDM assignments throughout this school year. I’m finding it increasingly difficult to fault EDM’s basic goal, which is to help students understand what they are doing when they solve problems and why their answers to problems are reasonable or make sense mathematically. EDM is very good at helping children develop math reasoning skills. I still have problems with its de-emphasis on basic facts, its delayed use or elimination of the standard algorithm, and its spiraling of concepts that doesn’t pinpoint mastery expectation points. It appears that the Common Core standards have addressed fairly well these problems, as well as the vocal criticism that has stemmed from them from parents and teachers, and have provided a more balanced approach than EDM does.

Questions still linger, though. Here are two: Why are these national standards so reflective of Everyday Mathematics? What input into the development process, if any, did the University of Chicago Mathematics Project or the EDM publisher, Wright Group (a division of McGraw-Hill), have? I have read comments from a variety of sources stating that classroom teachers should have had more say than they did in the creation of the Common Core Standards. My hope is that their input didn’t get squeezed out by that of textbook publishers.

Coming soon: Part II – Common Core Elementary Math Standards and Teacher Competence

Following the Money . . .

"The line between public and private has been eroding for half a century (or more). That the ASCD, one of the best financed professional development organizations in the nation, is now "sponsored" by CTB/McGraw Hill stunned me." ~Deborah Meier

OpenSecrets.org: Center for Responsive Politics

NCLB: Where Does the Money Go?

Susan Ohanian: Data Warehousing will Destroy Your Soul

Using Comic Life in the Classroom

Agenda

Whole to Part or Part to Whole

by Bob Keteyian

In my study of learning styles, I came across the whole to part and part to whole concept. As with all learning style paradigms, this has a strong connection to communication styles, and it particularly intrigued me because I could immediately identify with it.

I am a whole-to-part learner: I need to understand the overarching concept before getting the details. Moving in the opposite direction (receiving the details first), leaves me confused and feeling adrift. Those who are part-to-whole learners need to take in the parts that lead to the whole concept they are learning. Being presented with a whole concept first leaves them overwhelmed because the concept seems arbitrary.

I often want to know what a movie or book is all about before encountering it. I don’t mind hearing how it ends . . . in fact, I want to know the ending so I have an organizing concept and will often read the last part of a book first. The unfolding process is essential for those moving from part to whole and provides much enjoyment. Knowing the punch line from the start spoils the fun.

How does all of this relate to communication styles? Here’s an illustration: Julia is a very active, hands-on sixteen-year-old. She loves sports, doesn’t like to read, has a strong work ethic, is good with people, and is distractible. Because of the distractibility, her parents and teachers are always trying to get her attention, which they do by explaining things step by step. This seems logical—and it is—but it doesn’t work with Julia because she is a whole-to-part learner. She needs the punch line first and not work toward it.

Saying, for example, “Julia, this is probably the biggest event of the year for your mother, so we really need your help” gets her attention. Giving her a specific task to do (“Julia, we’d like you to tidy up the patio and then pick up some stuff in town.”) doesn’t. This approach is specific and incremental, which can help some who are easily distracted, but for a whole-to-part person like Julia, the requests seem random. Getting Julia’s attention by giving her the bottom line—the larger concept—first is more effective. She needs to know what this is all about before she can get connected to it.

The whole-to-part and part-to-whole axis is another tool for achieving effective communication that I’ve shared with many parents, couples, and business leaders who have found it useful. As always, though, it is best to understand how it works for you before applying it to others in your relational world.

Common Core National Standards Draft Released

"There is something fundamentally antidemocratic about relinquishing control of the public education policy agenda to private foundations run by society's wealthiest people"

~Diane Ravitch
Bridging Differences

Core Standards Downloads

Education Week: "Draft Common Standards Elicit Kudos and Criticism"

The Washington Post: "The Problems with the Common Core Standards"

NPR: "Education Panel Unveils Core K-12 Standards

Washington Post: "Governors, State School Superintendents Propose Common Academic Standards"

The Huffington Post: Susan Ohanian: "Politics and Parsnips: Obama's Common Core"

Joint Statement of Early Childhood Health and Education Professionals on the Common Core Standards Initiative

Cosmic Thinking & Education

Cosmic Thinking at LIM Resources

Imagining Physics

Feynman at TED

Feynman at Wikipedia

Lawrence Krause - Richard Dawkins Discussion

Cosmic Quandaries with Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson

Physics at LIM Resources

Multi-Tasking During College Lectures

Should laptops and phones be put away in order to focus on the lectures?

Might college professors re-think how they deliver information in their classes?

Washington Post: Profs to Students: Ditch Those Laptops

The Chronicle: Divided Attention

Education Quarterly: Is Higher Education Evolving?

Attention, Multi-Tasking and What is a Classroom for?

Turning a College Lecture into a Conversation

Are College Students Multi-tasking, Disengaging or Maybe a Little of Both?

Distractions in the Classroom

School Funding in Maine

Below is a resolution being passed by a number of Maine SAUs. (Thanks to Melissa Prescott for bringing it to my attention).

RESOLUTION SEEKING FAIR, EQUITABLE, AND TRANSPARENT FUNDING OF EDUCATION IN MAINE

WHEREAS, the voters of Maine approved a citizen-initiated referendum in 2004 calling on the state to fund “55 percent of the cost of public education;” and

WHEREAS, in 2005, the Legislature enacted LD 1, which put a process in place whereby the state would “ramp up” to a 55 percent state share by steadily increasing state funding for schools, K-12, over four years; and

WHEREAS, postponements of increased funding under the LD1 ramp-up were since enacted, and the Governor has ordered additional cutbacks in general purpose aid to education as part of the supplemental budget and through additional curtailments; and

WHEREAS, contrary to the intent of the voters of Maine, these actions have resulted in a 15 percent reduction in state funding of the costs of public education; and

WHEREAS, local school boards and administrators are being forced to make local budget cuts in the midst of the school year, and on an emergency basis, to make up for reduced state contributions to the costs of local education; and

WHEREAS, Maine Department of Education officials have not provided clear answers to local schools concerning future levels of state funding of local education, and have sometimes provided information that differs from day-to-day depending upon which local official is seeking the information or which state official is providing it; and

WHEREAS, local school boards are now in the midst of preparing local school budgets for the next fiscal year without secure knowledge concerning the level of state funding on which they can reasonably rely; and

WHEREAS, the state currently relies upon a system of funding for so-called “Essential Programs and Services” for education that is so out of touch with the reality of required educational expenditures that more than 60 percent of Maine communities this year are obligated to provide local funding exceeding what is deemed “essential” under the model; and

WHEREAS, the state cutbacks and curtailments are forcing increases in local funding for education through the property tax to meet the financial needs of Maine schools; and

WHEREAS, the actions of the Governor and Legislature have caused a massive shift of the burden of funding of education from the progressive income tax, levied based upon ability to pay, to the regressive property tax, which does not account for a property owner's ability to pay, particularly if they are on a fixed income; and

WHEREAS, the undersigned school boards adopting this resolution represent at least 20 percent of the students currently enrolled in Maine's public schools;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT:

The Governor and Legislature must adopt a fair, equitable and transparent model for the funding of public education in Maine which:

1. Meets the voters' expressed desire to fund 55 percent of the cost of public education, K-12, in Maine;

2. Relies more upon revenues generated by the progressive income tax and less upon those raised through the local property tax;

3. More clearly addresses, at a realistic level, what is “essential” for educational expenditures in our communities; and

4. Provides both the public and local education officials with reliable information concerning the state's contribution to local educational expenditures, thus avoiding the disruption and devastation of mid-year cutbacks and curtailments.

See also MDI: Maine's Essential Progam & Services Funding Model

What to Do When Technology Doesn't Work

What human beings need to be good at doing when the technology doesn't work . . .

Making Use of an Over-abundance of Moose in Maine

Snopes Review


Who(m) Do You Trust?

Teachers as Scapegoats

“Since we can’t fire poverty, we can’t fire students, and we can’t fire parents, all that is left is to fire teachers.”

~ Diane Ravitch



NCLB Advocate Shifts Position

Diane Ravitch: First, Let's Fire All the Teachers

Common Dreams: Obama Backs Rewarding Districts that Police Failing Schools

Education Week: Obama Gets Involved in R.I Teacher-Firing Drama

Washington Post: Class Struggle (Jay Mathews): Obama Wrong, Weingarten Right

Maeve Maddox on Language and Popular Culture: Teachers as Scapegoats

The Sydney Morning Herald: Now the Class Scapegoat is the Teacher

J.B. Fabiano: Why Do Teachers Have to Be the Scapegoat of Public Education?

Google Earth Tours

by Olga LaPlante

There has been a lot said about using Google Earth to show places and look up things in relation to a location. We have already begun to take Google Earth for granted - some of us are still in awe, but most have been using it matter-of-factly, and unless a new feature pops up or is demoed at a workshop, we are sort of "yeah, yeah, seen that" about it.

It has also been a while that Google Earth has had the feature which allows you to add your own placemarks, insert images and text, create a sightseeing tour, by clicking on each of your recent places.

Google, however, is notorious for changing and improving things - should I mention the infamous streetview? - and today - thanks to a request from a teacher - I have discovered that you can now create narrated tours in Google Earth and share them using a Google Earth embed widget! That is a wow update.

This is very important to me as educational technology specialist on two levels. One is the creative/productive aspect of the tool. We have lots of things to watch or read; expressing yourself and producing a new mashup is not as widely-spread as we might think (hence the whole plagiarism and copyright violations issue). This tool incorporates the ability to share and create.

Secondly, I am simply excited because I already see the integration side of the Google Earth story. I am already planning future workshops, incorporating this tool, and I know they will be a blast.

Google has put up lots of helpful info on how to create, use and share layers from Google Earth, whether you use a narrated recorded tour feature or a placemark tour. These tutorials and lots of other relevant information can be found at Google Earth Outreach.

P.S. If you are one of those who have long discovered this, please be generous and allow for some excitement! :)

Innovative Schools vs. Charter Schools

This bill enables school administrative units to establish innovative schools that meet the requirements of the federal Race to the Top Assessment Program application. The bill also requires that all applicable state statutory and regulatory requirements be met by school administrative units that establish innovative schools.

Public hearings and work sessions for LD 1801, 124th Legislature.
Education and Cultural Affairs
Public Hearings
SP 706, LD 1801	An Act To Promote the Establishment of Innovative Schools

Mar 4, 2010, 0100PM Room 202 Cross Building

Full Bill Text

Clip Art Credit

Tying Standardized Test Scores to Teacher Evaluation

In order to qualify for the RttT federal funds (4.35 billion dollars), Maine, like every other State, is quickly passing legislation to make us eligible. One of the bills concerns educator job evaluation.


What do you think? Is this selling our souls for money or a reasonable response to hard times?

See cartoon here. . .

Education and Cultural Affairs
Public Hearings An Act To Encourage the Use of Models in the Collection and Use of Student Achievement Data
SP 704, LD 1799		Mar 4, 2010, 0100PM	Room 202 Cross Building

---

SUMMARY

This bill eliminates the prohibition on the use of student assessment data in the establishment of models for evaluation of the professional performance of teachers. It also extends the models for evaluation developed by the Department of Education to principals and requires that the models include multiple measures.it within the State shall have has the option to incorporate the models developed pursuant to subsection 1 for the evaluation of the professional performance of any teacher or principal employed by that school administrative unit.

Download Complete Bill: Download RTF, PDF

Teacher Evaluation at LIM Resources

Clip Art Credit

Girls or Boys: Who is worse off?

by Bob Keteyian
Elias & Keteyian, Counselors to Families and Businesses, Ellsworth, Maine

Like many, I’m drawn to reading research and opinions about the state of boys and girls in today’s world and which sex is struggling more. It’s a question I’m not going to answer both because I don’t think it’s a particularly helpful question and because I don’t think it can be answered.

To see the differences clearly, we could make a chart showing the good and bad elements for both girls and boys. For example: More boys have ADHD, more girls have low self-esteem. Boys have higher SAT scores in math, girls have better verbal communication skills. Let’s not take our foot off the feminist accelerator or girls will get marginalized. Let’s not forget the high school drop out rate for boys. . . . To do this thoroughly, we’d need to weight the elements to find out which sex has it worse, but doing that, I’m sure, would devolve into some kind of political warfare. How could it not?

Answering the question doesn’t help us focus on the real issue: What is it that all kids need to thrive in today’s world? Is it really so different, what boys and girls need? I don’t think it is. Should we pay more attention to our girls’ evolving self-esteem than our boys’? Should we work harder to keep boys in school than girls? Of course not. What we do need to do is pay careful attention to the individual needs of each child.

I recognize that there are differences between males and females, but we are more similar than we are different. I’ve seen numerous charts that list the characteristics of men and women that focus on opposite needs. For example, in the male column it might say “autonomy,” and in the female side “connection.” But don’t we all need connection and autonomy? The only difference is the amount and the type—and those are individual differences, not gender ones. Putting all men and all women in classes by themselves discounts the commonalities and sets up an us/them mentality, . . and don’t get me started there.

Girls and boys: they need the same basic things when it comes to their home and school lives. The kind of care and education they need is not the rocket science part of it. The really hard part has to do with the negative forces in society that interfere with meeting those needs.

We know a lot about child development, good parenting and good teaching, but we haven’t found a way to systematically implement these best practices. Politically and economically we have not found the will to do what’s right. If improving the lives of our children was important enough in our society, we would not be competing for resources on behalf of boys or girls. There would be no need because we would indentify the individual needs of kids and help them in whatever way is necessary—male or female.

Internet Safety with PLC North

When: Tuesday, February 23, 3:00
Where: Dirigo High School
Agenda

George Orwell, Big Brother & Digital Cameras

Some schools have disabled student laptop cameras in the interest of security and safety. While I understand some of the fears, I think that it is unfortunate.

I worry much more about government and corporate surveillance and the manipulation of citizens through propaganda and advertising. While I'm not blind to the needs for privacy and safety, removing a tool that uses an increasingly dominant mode of communication does not help, in the long run, to educate our children in the appropriate and ethical use of that medium.

Any tool can be used for good or evil. While we spend an inordinate amount of time focusing on text, much of the communication sent our way now is multimedia. It is our responsibility to help kids learn to discern the messages that they are consuming, and to do that, they need to create and think critically about these forms.

Cameras are everywhere now. Places such as YouTube are thriving. Don't schools have an obligation to help model effective and critical uses of video? I fail to see how denying access to cameras in schools will help to create better citizens in the 21st Century.

When I taught 5th grade, if I found that one of my students was using a pencil in an unsafe manner, I might have temporarily taken it away from the student, but it would have seemed absurd for me to have outlawed all pencils in my classroom or school as well. Rather than forbidding them in the educational process, there were consequences for not following the rules. In other words, individual responsibility.

How are student cameras different in that regard? Now granted, digital technology is faster and more powerful and complex, but doesn't that make it even more important that we model appropriate use in and outside the classroom? How can that be done without the tool?

Instead of forbidding them, let's . . .

1. Make movies
2. Learn visual grammar
3. Think critically about movies
4. Investigate privacy issues
5. Learn about propaganda and advertising
6. Become Media Literate
7. Discuss ethics and decorum and responsibility and trust and etiquette in the context of our work.
8. Learn constructive ways of using Photo Booth

George Orwell, Big Brother Is Watching Your House