Math Education

Math is a discipline.  That means it takes practice and effort to become proficient with it and to understand it.  It is not something we can casually be entertained by and passively gain understanding, as perhaps art or music appreciation might be considered (though to truly appreciate these, one must practice and work at them as well to fully understand).

As society has gotten more conveniences to avoid work and more entertaining distractions, we have become less willing to build discipline within ourselves and our children.  Consequently we have sought after those who would tell us that there are easier ways without practice and obedience to law.  The secular educational prophets have promoted the "Constructivist" way of learning math and other subjects.  They have promoted it by preaching that they are helping students develop deeper understanding, while derisively calling the necessary practice of math "drill and kill."

They have tried to make it fun and flashy to fit our lazy, entertainment-filled world.  Most of the time it is merely confusing avoidance of work.  When challenged they have said that parents should not interfere with the work of professionals and that they, and only they, know how kids learn "their way," as if the youth were alien beings.  They have even tried to promote it saying that this is the way females and minorities learn best, which is demeaning and dehumanizing all.

To really understand math, with a deep understanding, one must first become proficient in its operation, just as with a musical instrument.  As the proficiency is improved, one can come to appreciate its nuances and find ways to use it for benefit.  Of course guidance will greatly enhance this.  It is absolutely true that if we only practice our scales in music we will not come to appreciate music, but if we do not practice our scales we will never become proficient OR understand music truly.  The same is true of math.

Because math is so important in so many fields, we must come to understand this progression in learning and seek to avoid theories that will circumvent real and deep understanding and proficiency by those who would sell "new" books and programs or seek to gain power or glory in the field of education.  Constructivist ways tend to create students who stand in awe of math, but believe they will never be able to do it or really understand it.  No wonder we are not progressing in the field of math!

Will STC (Scholarship Tax Credits) solve the voucher problem?

Real conservatives must be wising up about vouchers, as I see several articles promoting STC over vouchers, because of the propensity for government interference in private schools with vouchers.

But if you think that STC (used to be TTC - Tuition Tax Credits) solves the problem, you've got your head in the sand.  What the government giveth, the government can take.  Whether it gives a voucher and follows it with regulations or gives a tax credit (for whatever it wants to promote, like using natural gas in cars), it can and will follow with regulations for that credit.

There is NO way to get government subsidy or tax benefits without the government getting their hands in the pie.  STC might take a little longer for the government to stick their nose in it, but it WILL come.  Make no mistake about that.

The only way to stay free is to pay for it yourself.  You take their money or credits and they will direct it their way.  If you don't trust the government with your kids, DON'T seek their money (which gets taken from us first) OR their tax credits.  They are more like bait than benefit.

JUDGING TEACHERS

Teachers make more judgments every day, in both volume and variety, than those who pass judgment on them or the law!

Blaming the wrong people

Parents-more-important-to-test-scores-than-teachers-study-says

 Yet we continue to hammer teachers and allocate ever more resources to try to get the schools to force every kid to succeed, whether or not the student or parents put any effort. We try to make the 10% make up for the other 90%!

Priestcraft in Education

A definition of priestcraft from the internet is this: "priestcraft - a derogatory reference to priests who use their influence to control secular or political affairs."  I would add "or for money" to that definition.  Another definition that perhaps fits even more with education is this(with two words to change): "priestcrafts are that men preach(teach) and set themselves up for a light unto the world, that they may get gain and praise of the world; but they seek not the welfare of Zion(children).”(2 Nephi 26:29)  I believe that public education has suffered a great deal from the effects of educators involved in this abusive practice who seek not for the welfare of the children, but only to promote themselves or their pocketbook.

One of the most damaging things for public education is when educators use their position to gain higher position or income by promoting a program or product they developed.  This self-interest causes them to use children, and parents' concern for their children, to gain increased income or standing.  Usually those doing this are able to hype the kids, or their parents, long enough to make the program or product appear worthwhile - enough so to sell it or use it to gain promotions.

The supposed benefits usually fade away after they are gone, disappointing those left holding the bag. This disappointment has built up politically until there are many who, not only don't trust educators, but actively fight against public education in general.  "Priestcraft" in education is what has created the "fads" in education.  Fads like open classrooms, whole language, new math, and other controversial programs would be examples.

Ironically, competition, which is billed as the silver bullet of accountability to route out these fads, actually increases and promotes this kind of abuse.  When accountability and evaluations are based on competition in education, those most guilty are most able to gain promotions, power, and more money, because they are those most likely to use or misuse data to promote themselves.

Large district size contributes to this, because it gives a higher ladder to climb, places to hide accountability whether by complexity or distance, and bigger budgets to raid.  Thomas Jefferson taught that government is safest the wider it is shared.  That was why our government was spread between three branches and three separate levels of government by our forefathers.  Spreading that control not only makes abuse more difficult, it helps train more people in self government.

I do not know a way to ban false philosophies in a free society.  I have no trust in legislative attempts to guarantee "good" education, nor to guarantee a quality teacher in every classroom.  I do believe that by sharing the governance of education and pushing it to the most local level (by dividing our large schools and school districts), is the safest, most likely way to avoid the abuse of the system by educators practicing "priestcraft" for their own advantage at the expense of the children.

Problems in Education Caused by Government and Size

Having districts and schools get too big, and the rise of government interference, have been very devastating to education.  Districts getting too big cause schools to also get too big, as I have explained on my website, www.smallerschools.org.  The site also shows data supporting and explaining why size can be so negative.

Government interference mainly started when John Kennedy used education as an issue to get elected in 1960.  He blamed the schools for the USSR getting a man in space first.  This accomplishment had nothing to do with schools and everything to do with the fact that the USSR had spent so much of their budget in this pursuit, and we hadn’t.  By promising federal funds, he got just enough votes to win.  His successor, Lyndon Johnson, fulfilled this promise in 1965.  We did get to the moon first, but it was because we invested in NASA, not for anything the government did to or for the schools.  Federal funding was followed by legislation year after year, seldom with sufficient funding for implementation, adding to the burden imposed on local schools.  The legislation then invited judicial rulings that further increased requirements without funding

There were many educators who began to see, first in the federal government and later in states, a source of money and power by promising reform and training to improve teachers.  After almost 50 years, there is little evidence that these diversions of funding made any improvement.  Indeed most of the “reforms” in teaching only undermined good teaching, such as the constructivist-based philosophy of teaching, which produced such failed programs as Whole Language, New Math, and Open Schools.  Most of the efforts to reform teachers and the system have only complicated education and weighed down good teachers.

Until these events are reversed, education will only get more expensive, more complicated, and with less quality provided.

City Students at Small Public High Schools Are More Likely to Graduate, Study Says

City Students at Small Public High Schools Are More Likely to Graduate, Study Says

"The higher graduation rate at small schools held across the board for all students, regardless of race, family income.... Small-school students also showed more evidence of college readiness...."