Synopses of Reviews of Curriculum Standards



Synopses of Reviews of Curriculum Standards

Synopsis: The Stealth Curriculum: Manipulating America’s History Teachers

Robert Morgan and Company

In order to provide some context, it is important to consider some concerns the authors of this report raise regarding the status of history teachers. Paraphrased, history teachers in primary and secondary education are commonly part of a cycle that enables publishers and private-interests groups to say what they want to say about historical events, through their publications and supplemental materials. Though history and social studies teachers may be educated in history courses, there are no guarantees that they have ever been history majors or scholars; and there are no guarantees they will be given the opportunity to teach within their own area(s) of expertise, once they leave university classrooms. In fact, schools of education may require history teachers to take more courses in education than courses in history—but that does not necessarily mean they are better educated or prepared to teach history.

For these reasons, history teachers often lack the historical knowledge—that is, knowledge gained in university courses led by true historians and scholars, rather than lead teachers of history and social studies curricula—needed to address complex, contemporary issues in the classroom. Subsequently, teachers looking for support begin to rely on supplementary materials and professional development workshops to help them understand things about which they’ve never received formal instruction; these supports are often provided by companies that recognize and exploit these shortcomings in their clients.

Teachers are then bombarded by information and supplies for sale, many of which they never have time to effectively examine. They are inundated with options and given little guidance, aside from state curricula guidelines—but most of the instructional options they encounter at this point appear to meet standard courses of study. Moreover, these materials are initially reviewed by the teachers who will be using them, not historians and scholars—teachers who knew so little about the topics in question that they went looking for support.

The impact of 9/11 on the role of the history teacher is one of the examples used throughout this report. Prior to 9/11 history education curricula in America paid little attention to the history of Islam, to on-going conflicts in the Middle Eastern regions of the world, and so forth. Obviously, 9/11 changed this—but despite the immediate need to be able to discuss factors surrounding this event, what had changed about teachers’ knowledge and preparation?

Most of the history teachers in our schools were educated in primarily Western-based history programs [a potential problem itself and a criticism acknowledged in the report]. So, when materials like The Arab World Studies Notebook are published, they receive recognition, regardless of whether or not they are accurate, because most teachers know too little about the Arab world to recognize inaccuracies. And so it goes…similar examples include the Holocaust and the African Slave Trade.

The stated purpose of this report is two-fold:

1. To point out the features of a number of manipulative supplemental resources for history and social studies teachers; and

2. To show how similarly manipulative professional development workshops propagate the distorted content and recommend teaching practices…influencing what teachers teach and what students learn (Stotsky, 2004, 14)

How do the materials in question accomplish this:

• They omit important details, often “pro-Western” ideas.

• They inflate the significance of minor historical events.

• They promote false historical analogies and inferences (e.g. American science brought about the Holocaust, because Hitler was interested in eugenics).

• They endorse unethical pedagogical practices (e.g. teachers who know little about the topic won’t pick up on the subtle agendas the companies/organizations prepare). The report talks about The Arab World Studies Notebook and its efforts to convince teachers that Muslim exploration and settlement of the New World preceded Columbus’. “The idea that English explorers met native Indian chiefs with Muslim names in the middle of the Northeast woodlands sounds almost like something a Hollywood writer dreamed up for a spoof” (Stotsky, 2004, 21). Yet teachers who attended trainings for this material were oblivious to the inaccuracy of the information, information that has since been denounced by Native Indian spokespersons for the Algonquin Nation as “nonsense” (Stotsky, 2004, 22).

Author’s recommendations:

A. Preferred Strategies

1. Professional development in history and the social studies as now conceived should be defunded:

a. Public agencies lack capacity to review all current history curriculum supplements and to monitor their providers’ workshops effectively

b. Professional development programs and supplies are often planned and selected by educators who lack sufficient historical training, knowledge and academic background to do these things effectively

c. It is apparent that teachers are likely to accept anything presented to them by individuals and companies that appear to have connections to experts and expert organizations (e.g. kit designed by a Stamford, Connecticut firm to accompany the movie Amistad, which promoted the movie as historically accurate)

d. No data exists to demonstrate what history teachers learn at workshops

e. Educational materials provided, in an effort to be fair, often prove to be bland and biased (e.g. texts that focus primarily on the cultural differences of groups, rather than the historical significance of their existence and the events that surrounded their cultures)

2. Continuing education for history teachers should take place under academic auspices (i.e. in unveristy courses taught by historians and scholars).

B. Alternative Strategies:

1. Systematic research is needed on what history teachers learn from supplemental resources

2. History teachers should be able to report problems in supplemental resources

3. Standards should be formulated for evaluating instructional materials for history content

4. Standards are urgently need for evaluating the ethical dimensions of a learning activity

Stotsky, S. (2004). The Stealth Curriculum: Manipulating America’s History Teachers. Washington: Thomas B. Fordham Foundation.

2006 State of the State Standards

Kelly Batts

In August of 2006, The Fordham Foundation published, “2006 The State of the State Standards.” This 120 page document gives a brief overview of the history behind Standards-based Reform, beginning with The Coleman Report of 1966 and A Nation at Risk in 1983, then discussing the 1989 meeting with President Bush to develop national educational goals and the subsequent Goals 2000 Act and Improving American Schools Act. The basic assumption leading up to those two acts, were that children could attend school in America and that their school experience had very little to do with what they actually learned. After the national goals were developed and states began to respond with their own goals, the Fordham Foundation decided to read the English/Language Arts goals for each state and to rate their quality. In 1997 the Foundation published its first report of 28 school systems and only 5 emerged as having reasonably high marks. The next year the Foundation examined 4 other subjects and the results were just as dismal. Overall, states were given a “D-plus.” The Fordham Foundation’s analysis was echoed by other groups such as The American Federation of Teachers (AFT) and The Council for Basic Education (CBE). When the Fordham Foundation’s 200 report was released, there were only modest improvements with an overall score of “C-minus.”

The Foundation supposed that having each state’s analysis reported in this way and giving specific suggestions for how those standards could be improved, would cause states to feel an urge towards improvement. Instead, from 2000 to 2006 there is still little to report in terms of improvement. The Foundation reports the “good news” that at least 27 states have revised their standards, but the “bad news” according to Fordham is that the standards are no better than they were. The biggest complaint by this organization is in the area of content. That single factor makes the gains reported by Fordham Foundation less impressive than other groups such as AFT.

In this 2006 report, North Carolina’s performance is grim. The average cumulative grade point average of students has reportedly dropped from 2.8 to 1.6 from 2000 to 2006. The overall grade given to North Carolina from the Fordham Foundation based on state standards analysis has also dropped from “B-minus” to “C-minus.” And, North Carolina’s ranking has dropped from 5th to 20th. The Fordham Report gives states a grade for each of the following subject areas: English, Math, Science, U.S. History, and World History. In those areas reported, North Carolina received the following grades and rationales for those grades:

English- B

This was the best score that North Carolina received. The standards are reportedly clear, concise, and measurable. The problem with English standards were what Fordham Foundation said was, “incoherent organization scheme.” They also lack content specificity. There are no key works, authors, or literary periods or traditions listed in the high school curriculum to guide the content of study. The Foundation was impressed by North Carolina’s clear objectives on vocabulary and reading comprehension skills and said that the standards show a clear increase in difficulty as students progress through the grades.

Math-C

Fordham Foundation was not impressed with the revisions of North Carolina’s math standards. Once again, they report lack of content focus, sighting no mention of long division, carrying, or borrowing. They also do not like the fact that the standards are heavy on the topic of technology and manipulatives, but weak on mathematical reasoning.

Science-B

The science standards have strength in being content heavy. The only complaint about this subject is the fact that the science process is overstated. Fordham Foundation suggests that North Carolina take out the process material, which would make it one of the leaders in state science standards.

U.S. History-F (ouch!)

There is much to say about the problems with the state science standards. The Foundation begins with the fact that “by design, North Carolina students are never taught the colonial period, the Revolution, or the ratification of the Constitution.” The basic complaint is that students are asked to do lots of comparing and contrasting or showing changes over time, but are not required to know any names, dates, places, and important events in history. The Foundation even states, “This is not a U.S. history education in any sense.”

World History-F (ouch again!)

The biggest critique of the World History standards is that they are taught based on regional and cultural context rather than chronologically. They also lack specificity and the Fordham Foundation states that this curriculum does more to “confuse students than enlighten them.”

Response to A Consumers’ Guide to High School History Textbooks by Diane Ravitch

Cara Ward & Lionel Kato

INTRODUCTION

This publication summarized the findings of a review of high school history textbooks. Based on previous surveys, 80-90% of American students read from their history textbook in class daily or weekly. This group of reviewers rated some of the most commonly used textbooks in the United States.

THE REVIEW PROCESS

Two panels of experts (historians, teacher educators, and teachers) were formed. Each panel reviewed six textbooks. One panel examined United States History textbooks. The other panel review World History textbooks.

The following were the United States history books that were examined:

1) The American Journey

2) American Nation

3) History of a Free Nation

4) America: Pathways to the Present

5) The Americans

6) The United States in the Twentieth Century

The following were the world history textbooks that were examined:

1) Modern World History: Patterns of Interaction

2) World History: Connections to Today

3) World History: The Human Experience

4) World History: Continuity and Change

5) World History: People & Nations

6) World History: The Human Odyssey

The textbooks were rated on the following criteria:

1) Accuracy – Is the factual information correct?

2) Context – Are readers able to understand the significance of historical events?

3) Organization – Is the text coherent?

4) Selection of Supporting Material – Is the text supplemented with interesting stories?

5) Lack of Bias – Is their any political bias?

6) Historical Logic – Is the text free of present depictions of history that can skew events?

7) Literary Quality – Does the text engage the reader?

8) Use of Primary Sources – Does the text include primary sources (photographs and other historical documents)?

9) Historical Soundness – Is equal attention given to political, social, cultural, and economic history?

(11)Democratic Ideas – Does the text explain the development of democracy and human rights?

(12)Interest Level – Will students want to learn more about history after reading this book?

(13)Graphics – Do the graphics enhance the text?

The American Journey and American Nation received the highest scores.

FINDINGS

Overall scores (based on the 13 criteria) ranged from 50-78% satisfaction for United States history textbooks and 46-77% satisfaction for world history textbooks. One reviewer, Theodore Rabb called the review a “fairly dispiriting exercise” (page 20). The reviewers felt that many textbooks ignored content in “an ongoing effort to beguile its student consumers with a CNN Headline News-like pastiche of pictures, boxes, charts, extracts: anything to spare them the pain and suffering of being subjected to an extensive, substantive body of writing” (page 37). In other words, many of the textbooks focused so much on things besides the text that the writing was weak.

The reviewers also commented on the length of the textbooks, claiming that on average they were over 1000 pages and weighed 7 ½ pounds. They claimed that many books contained too much material making them “unwieldy.” Textbooks were filled with “bland themes and oceans of disconnected facts” (page 21). The format of many current textbooks makes the subject uninteresting for many students. The reviewers cited a number of criticisms including too much information, unequal treatment of historical events, incorrect interpretations of events, and more focus on graphics and other visuals instead of text. Overall, the reviewers were disappointed in the quality of all twelve of the books reviewed.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The authors of the report made the following recommendations:

1) There should be no more statewide textbook adoptions. Schools should be able to make decisions based on their specific needs.

2) Textbooks should be reviewed regularly by outside agencies.

3) There should be stricter standards for history teachers so that they are better prepared for classroom instruction.

4) Teachers should be able to use textbook money for other materials if they wish.

5) Teachers and textbook companies should be aware of increasing technology and need to think about what may replace the current types of textbooks.

The State of Science Standards

Pamela Monique Baldwin

This comprehensive review conducted by the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation on the state science standards revealed five common problems.

1. Excessive length and poor navigability-in an effort to “cover everything” the standards are written too long and are too unorganized to effectively guide educators. The reviewer indicates that the standards can be easily fixed by involving scientist in the writing of the standards and better editing.

2. Thin disciplinary content-the focus has turned to inquiry learning rather than science content (biology, chemistry, etc.) Inquiry learning is defined as seeking for truth, information, or knowledge -- seeking information by questioning. The standards focus more on the process rather than the facts. The reviewer discusses a need for students have to have content knowledge in order to be able to process.

3. Do-it-yourself learning- the standards are focused on discovery rather than learning the information from the teacher. For example, the focus is on discovering how mountains are formed rather than teaching plate tectonics or discovering electricity without learning the basics of positive and negative charges. “American students run a grave risk of being expected to replicate for themselves the work of Newton, Einstein, Watson, and Crick. That’s both absurd and dysfunctional.”

4. Good ideas, gone bad-the standard focus on labs and cultural diversity and lose sight of the need to teach facts, opinions, and problem solving techniques. For example, implying that everything should be taught through hands-on learning. Standard highlight the importance of engaging students with labs but minimize the importance of learning and memorizing facts, theories, and laws.

5. Shunning evolution-watering down the theory of evolution in response to political and religious pressures. Standards ignore the importance of evolution to biology and attempt incorporate creationism by downplaying evolution and suggesting that because it is “just a theory” it is likely to be false.

Results

• 19 states have put in place standards clear and rigorous enough to earn them an “honors” grade of “A” or “B.”

• 15 states deserve failing grades, signifying either that they have no real standards for their science program, or that their standards are so vague and weak as to be meaningless.

• The remaining 16 jurisdictions get “C” or “D” marks. (Iowa is not included because it does not publish science standards.)

The nation is neither making progress nor losing ground when it comes to expectations for what students should learn in science during the K-12 years.

Although a number of states did better than five years ago an equivalent number of states did worse.

Lemon and Company

The State of State Math Standards

In this third review of state math standards, the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation once again assessed states of four criteria:

1. Clarity: “The words and sentences themselves must be understandable, syntactically unambiguous, and without needless jargon. What the language says should be mathematically and pedagogically definite, leaving no doubt of what the inner and outer boundaries are, of what is being asked of the student or teacher. The statement or demand, even if understandable and completely defined, might yet ask for results impossible to test in the school environment.”

2. Content: “Coverage of the subject includes whether the topics offered and the performance demanded at each level are sufficient. Is the state asking K-12 students to learn the correct skills, in the best order and at the proper speed?”

3. Sound mathematical reasoning: “Reasoning that makes use of the structural organization by which the parts of mathematics are connected to each other, and not just to the real-world objects of our experience, as when we employ mathematics to calculate some practical result. The ability to deduce consequences that would otherwise required tedious observations and disconnected experiences to discover, which makes mathematics so valuable in practice.”

4. Absence of negative features. “Presence of unfortunate features of the document that contradict its intent or would cause its reader to deviate form what otherwise good, clear advice the document contains. False Doctrine, can be either curricular or pedagogical, is whatever text contained in the standards we judge to be injurious to the correct transmission of mathematical information. Inflation offends the reader with useless verbiage, conveying no useful information.”

This review differed from the previous two in the weight of these applied criteria. The selection team concluded that the single most important factor in improving math is selection and accuracy of content selection. “Content accounts for 40% of a state’s total score as compared to 25% in previous reports. They believe that states should heavily emphasize the teaching of arithmetic in the elementary grades and make sure it is mastered before students move on. “The recent results of two more international studies (PISA and TIMSS) make painfully clear once again that a vast swath of U.S. students cannot perform even simple arithmetic calculations. This ignorance has disastrous implication for any effort to train American student in the higher-level math skills needed to succeed in today’s jobs.” They recommend that the math standards be rewritten by mathematicians who know and understand math. “Klein makes one final recommendation that shouldn’t need to be voiced but does: Make sure that future math standards are developed by people who know lots and lots of math, including a proper leavening of true mathematicians.”

The 2005 State of State Math Standards report concluded that incorrect use of calculators at an early age, failing to memorize basic facts or standard algorithms, and not placing enough emphasis on fractions, has created major problems such as weak standards documents and low student achievement scores in mathematics, for most states. The team also feels that too much time has been spent on teaching patterns, estimation, manipulatives, probability and statistics. Although the authors agree that these strands of mathematics are commendable goals, the following criticisms are voiced:

• Patterns: “We are not arguing for elimination of all standards calling upon students to recognize patterns. But the attention given to patterns is far out of balance with the actual importance of patterns in k-12 mathematics.”

• Estimation: The authors state that there is once again a tendency to overemphasize and substitute estimation at the expense of exact calculations.

• Manipulatives: Authors agree that physical models can be advantageous in introducing new concepts to elementary students, but caution in the overdependence of models as a replacement for focus on the math.

• Probability and Statistics: Authors criticize standard documents where probability and statistics are introduced too soon. They also claim that many states include too much emphasis on this topic causing other important topics in mathematics to be omitted.

Incorrect use of calculators was found to be a major problem in current state math standards. Since calculators allow students to find arithmetic answers quickly, without thinking about the process, they defeat the purpose of teaching elementary students to think about numbers and to learn to compute arithmetically. The authors feel that there is too much emphasis on the use of calculators, especially in the early grades. In addition, many standards do not require students to memorize basic facts. The authors argue that by memorizing the basic facts, working memory is freed, allowing students to concentrate on algorithms and applications. Memorization of basic facts provides students to learn more complex operations and develop the mathematical fluency required for higher level math courses. “In general, too little attention is paid to the coherent development of fractions in the late elementary and early middle grades, and there is not enough emphasis on paper-and-pencil calculations. A related topic at the high school level that deserves much more attention is the arithmetic of rational functions. This is crucial for students planning university studies in math science, or engineering-related majors.” These topics have taken too much time away from the teaching and learning of valuable basic skills. Developing effective problem solving skills and mathematical reasoning skills also need to be clearly specified in the standards. Problem solving should be developed in a useful way. “Students should solve single-step word problems in the earliest grades and deal with increasingly more challenging, multi-step problems as they progress.” Mathematical reasoning should include more than solving problems; it should include teaching interconnections. It should ask students to demonstrate understanding such as proving mathematical formulas. The authors argue that many state standards undermine mathematical reasoning when perquisites for content are not developed.

They also stated that State Departments have put too much emphasis on the NCTM documents and recommendations. Most state standards are aligned with the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) Standards. The various NCTM documents promote emphasis on calculators, patterns, manipulatives, estimation, and non-standard algorithms, etc. “Much of the sameness of current state standards documents may be traced to the NCTM’s vision of mathematics education.” Authors feel that the NCTM’s Standards should be thought of as each state’s vision of the future.

Four suggestions for improvement were summarized in this report.

1. Use authors who are “grounded” in mathematics to create new standards. University professors from math departments are suggested to replace math educators or curriculum experts currently responsible for writing standards if they have inadequate backgrounds in mathematics.

2. Develop standards that stress both conceptual understanding (refers to an integrated and functional grasp of the mathematical ideas), and computational fluency (students should memorize basic facts so they will be able to recall them quickly and accurately). The authors state, “It is impossible to develop a coherent course of study in K-12 mathematics without a solid foundation of arithmetic.” Review the nine common problems cited by the report and rectify those errors:

• Calculators – There is little to no guidance found in standards documents to describe the use of calculators. They are used excessively in most states and elementary students are using them to compute basic facts they should be memorizing

• Memorization of Basic Facts: Students who do not memorize the basic number facts will experience much difficulty as more complex operations are required.

• The Standard Algorithms: Standard algorithms are guaranteed to work for all problem of the type for which they were designed. Knowing these algorithms and being able to use them and understand how they work, is a foundational skill for future mathematics.

• Fraction Development: Not enough time is spent developing paper and pencil calculations in late elementary and early middle grades.

• Patterns: Patterns are overemphasized in the standards documents and are out of balance with the actual importance of this topic in k-12 mathematics.

• Manipulatives: Physical objects can be used to introduce new concepts for elementary students but caution must be given to chance that students will focus on the models more than the math. They may also learn to depend on the manipulatives.

• Estimation: Estimation is also overemphasized in the state standards documents at the expense of exact arithmetic calculations.

• Probability and Statistics: This topic can be delayed until middle skills due to the fractions and ratios skills needed for many objectives. Too much emphasis on this topic can eliminate the teaching of important topics in algebra and geometry.

• Mathematical Reasoning and Problem Solving: Standards should guide the development of problem solving skills in a useful way. Children should solve single-step word problems in early grades and deal with more challenging, multi-step problems as they progress. True mathematical reasoning should be developed and integrated in all content at all grade levels.

3. Review the standards of those states rated high and borrow from their examples. California, Indiana, and Massachusetts were the only states to receive a superior rating of “A” on their current standards documents.

The authors were most disappointed in North Carolina’s math standards revisions. “Though these standards are reasonably clear, content coverage is mediocre at all levels, with pervasive shortcomings such as an overemphasis on patterns, data analysis, and probability, and an inappropriate use of technology.”

North Carolina’s overall grade was a C, dropping from A’s in prior reports. According to the criteria cited above, North Carolina ranked as follows in each category:

1. Clarity: Grade C, reasonably clear with some standards being poorly written and difficult to comprehend

2. Content: Grade C, mediocre coverage at all levels

a. overemphasis on patterns

b. data analysis

c. probability

d. unclear directions on use of the calculator

3. Sound mathematical reasoning: Grade D, found to be nearly non-existent at the high school level

4. Absence of negative features: Grade C

a. Triangles not adequately addressed

b. Lacking in expectations for calculator usage

c. Manipulative use inconsistent

d. Memorization of facts

The importance of statewide math standards can not be ignored. “Standards determine-or should determine- the content and emphasis of tests used to track pupil achievement and school performance; they influence the writing, publication, and selection of textbooks; and they form the core of teacher education programs.”

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download