THE EDUCATION FRONT

A frequent taunt by the Texas media is that the SBOE conservatives, while developing curriculum, often rule against education establishment “experts”.

Let's examine two key subjects, math and reading.

We shall see how the so-called “experts” have fared against SBOE conservatives’ common sense.

MATH

In November 2007, SBOE conservatives rejected “fuzzy”, or “reform” math, that required third grade students to learn only multiplication tables x0, x1, x2, x5, and x10.

They did this under full duress from “experts” belonging to the Texas Citizens for Science organization, which whined, “The reform math program was recommended by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics and has proven successful in achieving high scores in national studies".

Further, the organization claimed, “Math instructional programs should be chosen and taught by the trained and qualified math teachers in Texas, not by untrained and unqualified members of the State Board of Education”.

As I write this, a reform math story is unfolding in Seattle, Washington, and is worth noting here. The Seattle public school board recently adopted the reform math curriculum.

Parents, and a University of Washington professor, filed suit in King County Superior Court, asking to overturn the School Board’s decision for reform math and force the district to consider other textbook options.

They argued that the curriculum would do harm, by widening the achievement gap between middle-class and underprivileged students.

On February 4, 2010, Judge Julie Spector ruled that the Seattle Board’s decision to use the reform math program was “arbitrary and capricious”. She ordered the board to reconsider its decision.

Judge Spector said, "The court finds, based upon a review of the entire administrative record, that there is insufficient evidence for any reasonable member to approve selection of the program”.

In her ruling, Spector noted that the state's Board of Education had declared the curriculum "mathematically unsound" and that the state Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction did not recommend the curriculum.

She also said that studies of similar reform math at Cleveland and Garfield High Schools in Seattle showed that math test scores had declined.

Chalk up one for the “untrained and unqualified” SBOE conservatives. Zero for the “experts” at the Texas Citizens for Science and the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

READING

SBOE conservatives also won the reading curriculum battle, choosing phonics over whole language.

In its May 2008 meeting, the SBOE rejected the reading standards proposal of a group that called itself the “English Coalition”. That coalition supported whole language, inventive spelling, and no direct systematic instruction of grammar/usage.

How does whole language affect our kids?

As written in the article, “Whole language versus Phonics – The battle continues”:

“The Whole Language system teaches children to guess at words by looking at the pictures on the page, to memorize a few dozen frequently used words (called site words), to skip over words they don't know, to substitute words that seem to fit, and to predict the words they think will come next.

“Many schools give high marks and happy report cards to children who are good at guessing and memorizing words, so parents don't realize that their children are being taught to guess instead of to read. Self-esteem is a higher priority than literacy.

“Youngsters are allowed to use ‘inventive spelling’ if they can't spell a word. Their ‘creativity’ will not be marked wrong.

“But how this method plays out leaves kids at a real disadvantage. Take the example of one student who read the following story to his class. "If I would have magic beans, I would save the beans. And when I save the beans, then I will give them away. The End"

He was then assigned to write the words of the story. Using inventive spelling, however, he wrote, "if i wd hf mg isc I wd save then been and one I save the bes then I wd g thm way the end”

It's rather easy to date and track the Whole Language system from its official adoption by the state of California in 1987. California was a model for other states that wanted to be "progressive."

Numerous studies revealed that children who had phonics instruction consistently outperformed those with whole language.

For example, “a two-year study of first and second-graders in California's Inglewood Unified School District compared phonics to whole language instruction.

By the end of the second grade, phonics students scored more than a year above grade level in word recognition,
passage recognition and vocabulary.

In the ability to sound out and pronounce new words, phonics students scored almost four years above grade level.”

The results of studies and lack of success in whole language instruction opened eyes in California. On September 12, 1995, the California legislature unanimously passed legislation referred to as the ABC law.

The law states: “It is the intent of the Legislature that the fundamental skills of all subject areas, including systematic, explicit phonics, spelling, and basic computational skills, be included in the adopted curriculum frameworks and that these skills and related tasks increase in depth and complexity from year to year.”

Whole language reading curricula is a bad idea that rendered a generation of California students functionally illiterate.

Chalk up one more for SBOE conservatives. Zero for the “English Coalition experts”.

Unfortunately Mr. Ratliff sends strong signals that he will go-along-to-get-along with the very education political lobby "experts" who attempted to bring reform math and whole language
to unsuspecting Texas parents and students.

Conversely, Dr. McLeroy has demonstrated his courage and ability to counter the education political lobby, for the ultimate good of Texas students.

A phonetic approach to reading is sound; as reading experts have known for some time. It is the uneven acceptance of expert opinion that should be of concern. Don McLeroy, a dentist, exclaimed in one public forum "that experts are not needed." In an interview, he flatly stated that "evolution is hooey."

He also believes in the inclusion of additional information about McCarthy that teaches kids that there were, in fact, communists--just as he had suspected. This should be clear as day. It is common knowledge that McCarthyism is about the means by which he went on his search and outing of suspected communists. Few are confused whether or not there were actually communists; many understand that McCarthyism is about the subversion of democracy to achieve an aim, one that had devastating consequences for people who stood in his way.

Does the ends justify the means in a functioning democracy? An important history lesson to reflect upon as we head into this race.

It may be the "second most" important race to the DMN, but it is the MOST important race to children and the future of Texas.

For a state with a goal of leadership in science and technology, I wonder how far we'll get when the curriculum is supporting the idea that the earth is only 6,000 years old? You know, my Asian friend says her grandmother has a vase in her house that is older than that. My Jewish friend is celebrating the year 5770 on the Hebrew calendar. I guess dinosaurs are just fiction and someone just buried their bones around the globe for an ultimate game of "hide and seek" . McLeroy is repeatedly quoted as saying he believes the earth is approximately 6,000 years old.

Electronic textbooks are another issue. Books are only published every 10 years. How relevant will science books be when they are 10 years old? Social Studies books used in 5th grade are printed before the student was even born! Ratliff supports the option for districts to use textbook funding for digital books if they wish and McLeroy opposes.

How about the school permanent fund? Why did McLeroy, as chairman, support a change to the most expensive firm that happens to have the least experience?

We need to move forward with a new board, and in the case of McLeroy, VOTE RATLIFF! I can't wait to vote tomorrow, and I'm encouraging all Plano parents to get out there and make a change at the SBOE.

"A Ratliff upset would mean that more pragmatic members gain the upper hand."

Since pragmatic means "Dealing or concerned with facts or actual occurrences; practical" and "Relating to or being the study of cause and effect in historical or political events with emphasis on the practical lessons to be learned from them," how does reform math, phonics, creative spelling, and rewriting history for a liberal, anti-American bias pragmatic?

Sound like the members to which the author is referring and not pragmatic at all.

Scott A - On what basis do you accuse me of supporting a "re-writing of history for a liberal, anti-American bias?"

Please show me quotes from me, or material from my website that backs up your claim.

I have attempted to run a campaign based on the facts and the real issues facing the state board. My opponent and I have treated each other with respect and have kept the campaigns out of the gutter.

Please, for the sake of those concerned about public education in Texas, back up your rhetoric with facts. Don't just throw accusations around as a fear tactic.

Respectfully,

Thomas Ratliff

Mr. Ratliff…..

My post questioned the author’s view of the pragmatism of the non-conservative board members. You were simply mentioned in his quote.

That being said……

President Barack Hussein Obama regularly calls for political bipartisanship in his quest to bankrupt America and impose unwanted government health care on our citizens.

The problem with this is that to the liberal Obama mindset, bipartisanship requires totally caving in to the left.

Similarly, a major point in your platform calls for “Taking politics OUT of public education”.

And similarly, “Taking politics OUT of public education” means totally caving in to the leftist education political lobby on such curriculum train wrecks as reform math, whole language reading, anything-goes sex education, censorship of academic freedom and classroom discussion regarding both sides of the evolution issue, and yes, the re-writing of history with a liberal, anti-American bias.

I wonder if you understand that the left never gives up in its ongoing culture war on America.

Scott -

Interesting that you are now comparing me to Obama. I want to take politics out of public education because I have two children in the public schools, not because I want to "totally cave to the left." There is a way to have honest disagreements about education policy without resorting to name-calling, finger-pointing or conspiracy theories.

Your rant about what "taking politics out of public education" is unfounded, uninformed and way off base. That may be what YOUR definition is, but don't thrust your values onto my campaign.

I wonder if you understand that political extremists from both sides are driving the average American away from the polls because they get disgusted with the behavior.

If you want to really discuss the issues and understand my platform, please call me at (903) 422.5535.

Scott,
Do you ever have a unique thought, or do you just parrot for FOX? Intelligent people have the ability to think for themselves and may not just go straight across the board agreeing with one news source. All your talk about left and right shows your inability to view things at any deeper level than a football game as you root for your team to win.
By the way, there are no two sides on evolution and there is no debate.

Once again I noticed that you have nothing to say about the SBOE race in District 12. This contest is between George Clayton, an educator and Geraldine Miller the Vice President of Henry S. Miller Real Estate. Why not put an educator on the State Board of Education? Ms. Miller, who claims to be an educator is, in fact , not an educator. Mr. Clayton is an educator and experiences the ups and downs of public education every day. I know that is true, because I am George Clayton.

George M. Clayton, Candidate District 12 SBOE

A phonics program has to teach 4 symbols per sound and 4 sounds per symbol. Many phonics programs do not go that far and unless taught right, this kind of ambiguity can be problematic for half the class.

Self esteem and confidence in ones ability to learn is important.

Inventive spelling is usually phonetic spelling. It is said to be a stage that all children pass through before they learn the traditional non-phonetic "correct" spelling as a sight word.

You need to be careful how you correct the child's initial spelling of *enuf (for instance) since there is no logical path from /i'nûf/ to enough.

Phonics is important when it comes to spelling but less so with respect to reading . . . except as a strategy for "sounding out" unfamiliar words.

Sounding out works fine when there are only one or two options. It is not so great when there are a dozen or more.

*scissors for instance can be pronounced quite a few ways.

The spoken word, /'siz@rz/, can be spelled over 10,000 ways. In a dictionary key it can be spelled only one.

Kids can learn to read and write in a dictionary key in 3 months. This is all the time it takes in Finland, Hungary, Estonia, or in any language with a transparent orthography.

Most alphabetic written languages are highly phonemic and are so close to a dictionary key that their dictionaries do not need to provide pronunciation guide. English and French are the exceptions.

I was reading some of the comments on the text book war. To Mr. RAtliff: I thank you for taking the time to write your comments. Especially the one about the right wing never giving up. It's true! I would like to add one though: The reason why the right wingers have been winning in the courts, and other areas is the conservative have gotten lazy. Many times they only complain about the right! This is why things have been going the way they have! Thanks again for spending time to get your voice heard!!!