Dr. Stat

Elections

2007-11-26T21:18:00.000-06:00

Let's face it. The presidential election is a farce. The only people who can win are those who have lots of money backing them and a good share of the media as well. In order to get elected, politicians either have to lie or sell out.

I wish I could be president. Of course, I don't have any of the qualities. I'm not a schmoozer. I have been known to say stupid things in public. I'm not rich. I don't have political experience. I don't have an "organization." I have principles.

I wouldn't take any money. (Meaning, of course, that I couldn't win.) As soon as a candidate takes money, he owes somebody, and principles are out the window. We Americans have dug this hole for ourselves. We refuse to listen to principled candidates. We let the media drive the campaign, and the media runs on the sensational and the novel, not the principled. We make decisions on sound bites and perceived personality traits (i.e., who is the best actor).

Oh, how nice it would have been if we had listened to the founding fathers. They TOLD us not to elect the president through popular vote. They TOLD us not to tax individuals directly. They TOLD us that powers not enumerated in the constitution were reserved to the states, in order to keep the national government from becoming too strong. They TOLD us to maintain balance of power between the branches of government. They TOLD us to protect our nation's sovereignty. We are on the verge of losing everything. There are voices (other than mine) sounding the warning. For some reason, not many people are truly listening. They will pay--we will all pay--for this. We will pay with our lives and treasure. I fear time is growing short.

No Child Left Behind is a Failure

2007-11-15T19:57:00.000-06:00

as many of us have known, suspected, predicted, preached, whined, cajoled, cried, complained, and generally tried to get anyone to notice.

But, you know, anytime you have a big government program that "benefits the children" no one will pay any attention to the fact that it is bad, wrong, useless, harmful, inefficient, or even unconstitutional--which NCLB clearly is, as the federal government has NO AUTHORITY in the area of education. Paul Weyrich, in the linked article, explains again what is wrong with NCLB. The idiotic measure of "progress" have nothing to do with real progress or real education. Teachers all over the country know what we all should have known to begin with--the program causes wasted efforts to prove the school is proficient which, in most cases, only takes resources away from other important areas. Yes, some math and reading scores are up. A little. But they were on their way up before NCLB, and who knows if the trend would have continued or not? Meanwhile, science, history, geography, music, and art are shunted to the side. I know reading and math are most important. But not to the exclusion of all else, IN PARTICULAR, when reading and math can so readily be taught WHILE teaching science, history, geography, and maybe even music and art.

Local schools and local teachers can figure these things out, but large bureaucracies (expensive bureaucracies) can't. So more teachers are "highly qualified?" I wouldn't believe it. Maybe. Giving attention to teacher qualifications is important. But so many are receiving spurious or nominal certificates that come from completing some busy-work program that likely does nothing significant to improve their actual teaching performance. Good teachers have to be SMART. You don't get smart by attending a certificate program. Good teachers have to be GOOD WITH KIDS. This is an innate quality that I don't think anyone can be taught, certainly not by taking a few evening classes from an Ed. School.

I wish somebody would give me a chance to fix the schools. The first thing I would do is give the federal government the boot, right where it belongs.

Don't teach the Bible in public schools

2007-03-29T15:39:00.000-05:00

Christopher Ruddy (Don't teach the Bible in public schools) said, "Let's go back to the Bible in the classroom issue. Would you want public school teachers interpreting the Bible for your kids? In some schools teachers may promote the Bible because they are believing Christians. In other schools teachers with a secular humanist bent will undermine its legitimacy. The best place for faith to be taught to kids is in the home, church, and private schools."

Would you want public school teachers interpreting history for your kids? In some schools teachers may promote the a view of history that emphasizes the struggle for freedom and liberty and individual rights, together with a positive view of western civilization and the contributions of America. In other schools teachers with a socialist bent will undermine western civilization, denigrate America, and focus on issues of social justice and the benefits of socialism. The best place for history to be taught to kids is in the home, church, and private schools.

Would you want public school teachers interpreting literature for your kids? In some schools teachers may promote the classical literature because they believe it contributes to the development of the human spirit and timeless values. In other schools teachers with a secular humanist bent will use literature to undermine the noblest achievements of man and promote a pessimistic and defeatist attitude about modern and contemporary life, with a goal of eliminating the influence of religious belief and conditioning children for life under an all-powerful state. The best place for literature to be taught to kids is in the home, church, and private schools.

Would you want public school teachers interpreting mathematics for your kids? In some schools teachers may promote basic skills and fundamental knowledge that is useful in everyday life and serves as a base for advanced mathematical understanding such as our best scientists and engineers will need to have if we are to remain competitive in the world. In other schools teachers with a progressive bent will undermine the legitimacy of fundamental mathematical knowledge, if in fact, they understand it at all. They will teach fuzzy concepts and use of calculators and computers to do "advanced" tasks for which the students have no structural understanding. The best place for math to be taught to kids is in the home, church, and private schools.

Would you want public school teachers interpreting the sciences for your kids? In some schools teachers may promote understanding of a wide range of ideas and important issues, in some cases because whatever their religious beliefs, they believe that scientific thinking is best served by examining conflicting hypotheses rather than teaching current speculations as facts. In other schools teachers with a secular humanist bent will undermine free inquiry, and demand that students accept the currently-dominating views of what is legitimate science. The best place for science to be taught to kids is in the home, church, and private schools.

Fixing Math Education 3

2007-03-20T11:02:00.000-05:00

Testing.

Whenever you mention testing, there are people who get up in arms with all kinds of objections. Testing isn't fair. Testing doesn't really measure what kids know/understand/can do. Testing is biased. Testing is racist. Testing takes time away from real education.

Yeah.

Well, math is, probably more than any other subject, amenable to testing, fair and unbiased. We need to have meaningful standardized testing that is not just "high-stakes" for schools but for individuals. There has to be a way to require a certain skill level be achieved in each grade or the kids don't pass. The students have to be personally responsible for achievement, and the teachers have to be responsible if their students don't pass. They need to contribute the extra time needed to get their students up to speed when they don't pass. The tests should be comprehensive up to each grade level, the questions should not be known in advance, and they should be changed every year. Let's put the students and teachers together on the same team, fighting together to beat the tests.

Fixing Math Education 2

2006-11-27T19:12:00.000-06:00

The Back-to-Basics vs Constructivism feud

AKA "Drill-n-Kill" vs "Inquiry Based"

AKA "Traditional" vs "Progressive"

Notice how some terms just naturally sound better than others? Does that have anything to do with the substance of the ideas?

So there's really no general agreement on what constructivism is. Some people argue it's not curriculum or pedagogy, it's brain science. I simply use it to refer to those approaches of teaching mathematics that require students to develop their own mathematics from scratch. It might include "Problem Solving," "Discovery Learning," and "Inquiry-based Learning (IBL)." My apologies to those who will claim that I do violence to their pet definitions here. But there do seem to be two general camps. On the one hand we have those who think students should learn efficient, time-tested methods of solving problems, and learn them to mastery (automation). These I call "traditionalists." On the other hand, we have those who emphasize that students should learn to think creatively, develop strategies to solve novel problems, and develop deep insights into mathematics. These I call "constructivists."

The answer is actually simple. We need both. However, when sacrifices must be made, there is one approach that is essential, and one that is merely desirable. Unfortunately, reasonable people will disagree about which is which. This, however, is my blog, so my opinion is right.

The much-maligned traditional method is essential. We must first realize that there is a great deal of disinformation floating around about the traditional method. Its opponents claim the traditional method teaches rote memorization without understanding or thinking. Except perhaps in some isolated enclaves where stereotypically poor teaching took place, this has never been the case. All the widely used math textbooks of the 19th century, for example, emphasized "mental arithmetic," that is, the ability to think through multiple-step problems "in your head" and give the solution, not only without a calculator but even without a pencil. The kinds of thinking and understanding that were required differed from what is expected today, because the skill set expected of an educated person has changed. So in those days, being able to carry sums in your head was far more important than, say, sketching the graph of an exponential function. In honest debate, we must realize that "Back-to-the-Basics" or "traditional education" does not imply restricting ourselves to the content or objectives of a bygone era.

The primary features of the traditional method include: 1) Understanding a mathematical concept, e.g. "What does it mean to add two numbers?" 2) Memorization of basic facts/definitions/results, e.g. "the Times Tables." 3)Application of memorized knowledge to novel problems and more advanced concepts. 4) Review and maintenance of memorized knowledge.

The traditional method results in efficient learning and provides the foundation necessary for creative thinking, even if it fails to sufficiently address that objective, according to its critics. And yes, even educators from Singapore, whose students smoke the Americans in international tests, are looking with envy at the creativity of some of our students. This demonstrates that a commitment to the essential objectives may not produce all the results that are desirable.

It is well documented in cognitive science that the brain has a limited capacity to manipulate objects in "working memory." It is often said that we cannot process more than seven memory objects at once, which supposedly explains why phone numbers have seven digits (only now they have 10, but that's OK, because the phone remembers all the numbers for us). The working memory is where problem solving and creative activities take place. The working memory can access permanent memory for information it needs. However, any new information that must be taken in to solve a problem must occupy space in the working memory, thus taking away from the space available for creative activity. That is why we quickly become frustrated when trying to follow assembly instructions that include many terms with which we are not familiar. Even if the actual steps in the process are simple, if they involve several terms that are not defined in our permanent memory, those terms require space in our working memory which is then not available for solving the problem. This explains why the pedagogic fad of "learning to learn" is a failure. We do indeed need skills for learning--but such skills are utterly dependent on a reliable bank of information which can be accessed instantly and does not require the use of working memory. The first step in problem solving or creativity must be putting as much relevant information as we can into permanent memory.

Fixing Math Education 1

2006-11-16T21:21:00.000-06:00

Improving math education, I mean, really improving it, and not just pretending by doing change for the sake of change, is complicated. But it is more complicated politically than it is educationally. The things that actually need to be done are not as difficult to ascertain as some people think. The problem is, there is no political consensus on doing the right things. Every idea for a good or necessary change is shot down for one reason or another. So we muddle along in mediocrity.

The first thing we need is to put truly math-savvy people in the elementary math classrooms. The current crop of elementary teachers (not all of them, of course), whine because they don't know enough math and they want more "training." But the problem isn't really that they need training, it's that they need an intellectual capacity for doing math and a love for doing math that no training can give them. The best that any training can do is give them some techniques for presenting ideas to students at the grade level they teach. But what they need is a grand understanding of mathematics, including the development of mathematical ideas in the children they teach, but also including the future mathematical needs of these children...especially the ones who will go on to careers in the hard sciences, engineering, statistics, and even pure math. The average elementary teacher has no clue at all what lies ahead for these students. The result is an inability to foster the ideas and attitudes that are necessary for excellence in mathematics.

A political argument that will be made immediately is that not every student is going in this direction, or even has the talent for such a career. Yes, well, that is true. Is it really a solution to deny the necessary education to those who need it, because others do not want it? I find that unacceptable, don't you?

Black Wednesday

2006-11-08T09:49:00.000-06:00

The blood of those who have been murdered cries out for justice. "How long, O Lord, How long?" An enemy is being prepared, and is already prepared, to carry out the sentence. The enemy is moving methodically, without comprehending how its false beliefs and evil purposes are being used by the Creator of All to purify His Own. The sentence will be upon the by-standers as well as the guilty, for the inaction, the failure to stand in place of the innocents when the opportunity presented, is punishable as well.

The enemy rejoices that its stooges, complicit in the crimes which are to be punished, have attained positions of power, from which corruption will increasingly flow, making the punishment all the more certain. Our Lampstand is about to be taken away.

May God have mercy.

Self Esteem and Math

2006-10-24T09:59:00.000-05:00

The Washington Post has dared to print an article about a Brookings Institution report that contradicts the "prevailing wisdom" about self esteem:

Washington Post, 18 October 2006 (p. A02)

A report from the Brookings Institution suggests that schools that focus on keeping kids happy and self-confident may not be producing the best math students.

The report, authored by Tom Loveless, found that countries such as the U.S. that embrace self-esteem and real-world relevance in mathematics don’t score as high on international assessments as countries that ignore those aspects of learning.

Several Asian and European countries do better than the U.S. in math scores even though their students report less confidence in their math skills. The conclusions show that U.S. schools should question whether happiness is what matters in the classroom, Loveless said.

“It is interesting that people grasp this notion in other areas of self-improvement – eating healthy foods, getting exercise, saving for retirement – but when it comes to education, for some reason, the limitations of happiness are forgotten,” he said.

However, officials in Japan and Singapore have recently begun to complain that their graduates do not think as creatively as American graduates, noted Gerald Bracey, an educational psychologist. Therefore, they have begun to copy the very aspects of U.S. education that Loveless says may be unproductive.

But Chester Finn Jr., president of the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, agreed with the report’s findings. “Schools should work on academics, not feelings,” he said.

The ed establishment has strayed so far from common sense and what people have known for generations, or millennia, really, about serious education, that now we actually have "serious" debates about things like this. Well, having a debate at all is a positive step, since for the last 40 years or so the debate has been rigorously squelched by the forces of uncommon nonsense.

Am I being too much of an optimist, when I pick out things like this as a sign that things are changing for the better?

The National Math Panel

2006-05-24T10:32:00.000-05:00

Education Week, 19 May 2006 (p. 08)
“Some Worry About Potential Bias on the National Math Panel”

President Bush has named only one K-12 teacher to his National Mathematics Advisory Panel, a group charged with exploring math teaching and learning. The lack of teacher representation on the panel has some observers questioning the group’s makeup and its objectivity.

Not me! It's great to finally see the experts on Mathematics being consulted on learning and teaching mathematics. We let that amateurs do it much too long.

The panel is weighted with experts on teaching mathematics at the college level, and does not represent “a balanced view of mathematics,” said Steven Leinwand, a principal research analyst at the American Institutes for Research. Some are concerned that the panel is biased toward one particular method of teaching math, the traditional approach that focuses on drills and computation.

In other words, experts who actually want our students to learn math instead of coming to college needing to learn fractions and decimals.

Even Vern Williams, the one K-12 math teacher on the panel, has a Web site on which he criticizes the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics for promoting what he calls “fuzzy” math standards.

Another panelist, Wilfried Schmid, a Harvard University mathematics professor, has also been a frequent critic of NCTM. However, Schmid says the two sides in the so-called “math wars” have begun working more cooperatively, and are finding common ground.

Tom Loveless, a senior scholar at the Brookings Institution who was selected for the panel, dismissed suggestions that the panel has an agenda.

“It’s an opportunity to cut through a lot of the noise surrounding math,” Loveless said.

We can hope!

National Board Certificate

2006-05-24T07:40:00.000-05:00

Ha Ha Ha! I knew it!

No disrespect to those teachers who went through all the hard work of getting the National Board Certificate (many say it was a great learning experience), but I have never held any hope that it would really benefit education in America. I watched a presentation about this when it was new, and immediately concluded that it was just another "reform" program designed to get teachers to give up "old fashioned" (effective) teaching stratagies and replace them with all the latest fads.

Education Week, 17 May 2006 (p. 01)
“Study for NBPTS Raises Questions About Credential”

A year-old study only recently summarized on the Web site of the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards concludes that board-certified teachers are no more effective at improving student performance than teachers without the credential.

The study, conducted by William Sanders, the statistician who came up with the “value added” method of evaluating teacher effectiveness, examined some 35,000 student records and more than 800 teachers in North Carolina.

The Sanders findings are important because the cost to date of certifying about 47,500 teachers is more than $600 million. A board spokesman said they do not intend to make the entire paper public, however.

Oh, no, we won't make all this public. There are 47,500 constituents out there who have benefited from the $600 million cash cow and they aren't going to let us end yet another boondoggle spending program.

Algebra I dumbs down

2006-05-24T07:23:00.000-05:00

See, it's happening already...

Philadelphia Inquirer, 18 May 2006
“New method of algebra solves an old problem”

The Philadelphia school district has developed a new algebra curriculum designed to make the subject more accessible to all eighth graders.

Called Algebra8, the curriculum melds portions of the ninth-grade Algebra I curriculum with the traditional eighth-grade math curriculum. Students use manipulatives like Algeblocks to visualize problems and algebraic principles. The Algebra8 instruction is added to their daily 90-minute math period three times a week.

At the end of the year, eighth-graders will take an algebra proficiency exam. Those who pass will move on to Algebra II or geometry in ninth grade, and those who fail will take Algebra I.

Did you catch that? the new curriculum is "more accessible" (easier) for "all eighth graders" (easy enough for the bottom eighth graders). Not only that, it includes "portions" of Algebra I (hmm, I thought 8th grade math already did, but then I'm from the Dakotas) not all of Algebra I, and if students pass they move on to Algebra II--which now has to be dumbed down, as well, because the students who pass the 8th grade proficiency test haven't had all of Algebra I.

Yup, it's the appearance of raising standards without the substance of raising standards, moving things earlier in the curriculum but reducing their complexity, in other words, politically motivated dumbing-down.

“High School Exit Exam Tossed”

2006-05-22T14:46:00.000-05:00

Los Angeles Times, 13 May 2006

Some 46,000 California seniors who failed the state’s high school exit exam may get their diplomas after all. An Alameda County Superior Court judge ruled Friday that the exam unfairly burdens students who attended low-income schools.

This is the first graduating class to have to pass the exam, which consists of eighth-grade math and ninth- and 10th-grade English. Jack O’Connell, the state superintendent of public instruction, called the ruling disappointing, and “a setback for students and for hard-fought school accountability in our state.”

So, our schools graduate high school students who can't read, write, or do 'rithmetic, and we respond by requiring them to pass a test to graduate. Not a high school test, mind you, just an 8-10th grade test. Then, just when we thought we had a fix for the problem, the court tells us we can't refuse high school diplomas to people who can't do 8-10th grade work. We might as well just do away with high school diplomas altogether, since they don't mean anything. Give them a certificate of attendance, if you want, but forget about the meaningless high school diploma. Students who want a real high school diploma can take the IB exam. At least we know that means something.

Are they starting to get it?

2006-04-24T11:10:00.000-05:00

SOURCE: Seattle Times, 16 April 2006
WEBSITE: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/
TITLE: “Math comes with its own problems”

“The biggest problem we have with mathematics in the U.S. is there isn’t a clear mathematics program,” said Mike Riley, district superintendent, Bellevue, Washington. “If it is not clearly organized, and you don’t have agreement on what kids need to learn in second grade so the third-grade teacher can count on it, you get what we have: weak performance in mathematics.”

The key is to order topics over the grades such that they follow the inherent structure and logic of mathematics, and to ensure that kids reach a deep understanding of each mathematical concept before moving on, said William Schmidt, a math expert at Michigan State University. “The idea is to build ideas on each other in an increasingly complex way,” he said.

It sounds like educators are beginning to discover what teachers long ago knew and mathematicians have been desparately trying to tell them for years. Yet, they still haven't got it quite right. Deep understanding doesn't come in chunks, but is a continuous process that comes from review and integration. You don't stop where you are until everybody has a deep understanding, then move on. You wouldn't get very far that way. But you move on, and you come back. You integrate, refresh, and expand. You constantly check for understanding and look for those powerful "aha" moments when students suddenly comprehend what they learned about months before--you capitalize on the psychological rewards of mathematics.

Minnesota increases Math Requirements

2006-04-18T15:14:00.000-05:00

Tim Pawlenty, Minnesota's governor, wants to make Algebra 1 an 8th grade requirement, and Algebra 2 a high school graduation requirement. Teachers complain that they will need more training in math instruction. (The same teachers who say they don't learn anything useful in education classes, I presume.) They also say it will take more support from parents.

“The rigor has to start in the elementary schools and carry through to the middle schools or they will not be ready for algebra by eighth grade,” said Mary Hoffman, an Algebra 1 teacher at Apple Valley Falcon Ridge Middle School. “And rigor includes studying at home and parental support.”The new math standards will be implemented, at the earliest, in the 2008-09 school year, according to state education Commissioner Alice Seagren.

What can I say? I'm cynical as usual. I'm all for improved standards and stronger requirements. But over the years, it has been evident that moving courses down in the grades makes them weaker, especially if they are required of all students. Already students who take Algebra II and Geometry do not compare with students who took these courses 30 years ago. In those days, calculus was rarely an option, now many schools have it. But are the students learning more, or are they already working at maximum capacity and just taking more courses and "covering" more material without actually learning more?

L.A. Mayor Links Dropout Rate, Civil Rights

2006-03-07T11:40:00.000-06:00

Los Angeles Time, 02 March 2006
TITLE: “L.A. Mayor Sees Dropout Rate as ‘Civil Rights Issue’”

The issue was brought to the fore by a Harvard University study estimating that less than 50 percent of L.A. students graduate in four years. The rate is lowest for Latino students. The school district has disputed the study’s figures, saying the overall graduation rate is closer to 70 percent. But Villaraigosa said neither figure is acceptable. “These are numbers that should put a chill down your spine,” he said.

It occurs to me that we should ask the question, "How many people should graduate from high school?" The way most people talk, it should be 100%. But that would be absurd.

Lewis Terman (1916) developed the IQ classification:

Over 140 - Genius or near genius
120 - 140 - Very superior intelligence
110 - 119 - Superior intelligence
90 - 109 - Normal or average intelligence
80 - 89 - Dullness
70 - 79 - Borderline deficiency
Under 70 - Definite feeble-mindedness

(http://www.wilderdom.com/intelligence/IQWhatScoresMean.html)

Now we can argue about the reliability of IQ scores, we can debate whether or not IQ tests are "fair," etc. ad nauseum. But everybody "knows" that there is something to the concept of IQ, even if we are a bit fuzzy about what it means.

IQ is normally distributed, but the distribution varies from place to place and from group to group (racial, socio-economic, etc.). Still, if we consider the overall distribution of the population,

"Adults in the bottom 5% of the IQ distribution below 75) are very difficult to train and are not competitive for any occupation on the basis of ability. Serious problems in training low-IQ military recruits during World War II led Congress to ban enlistment from the lowest 10% (below 80) of the population, and no civilian occupation in modern economies routinely recruits its workers from that below-80 range. Current military enlistment standards exclude any individual whose IQ is below about 85."
"Persons of average IQ (between 90 and 100) are not competitive for most professional and executive-level work but are easily trained for the bulk of jobs in the American economy."

Linda Gottfredson, "The General Intelligence Factor", Scientific American Presents "Exploring Intelligence", pg. 24, 1999, (reference in http://www.geocities.com/rnseitz/Definition_of_IQ.html)

Now let's be really clear about what that means. Ten percent of the population has IQ scores below 80, and those people were not smart enough to be soldiers in WWII and are not smart enough today to be recruited for any working-class jobs. (I assume this does not mean that they do not hold such jobs, just that employers do not seek them.)

THERE IS NO WAY THAT THE BOTTOM 10% OF THE POPULATION CAN LEGITIMATELY GRADUATE FROM HIGH SCHOOL, not if a high school diploma means anything at all. In fact, I would consider it unreasonable to expect this 10% of the population to graduate from eighth grade, if eighth grade completion means anything at all.

Therefore, we may conclude that high school graduation rates in the general population should by no means exceed 90%. Now let's try to get a better idea about the remaining 90%. According to Gottfredson, "Persons of average IQ (between 90 and 100) are ... easily trained for the bulk of jobs...." This suggests that we can expect people with an IQ of at least 90, which is about 75% of the population, to graduate from high school, though not necessarily in a college prep program. This is further refined by Jensen:

In his book, "Straight Talk About Mental Tests", The Free Press, A Division of the Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., New York, 1981, pg. 12, Dr. Arthur Jensen cites the following four IQ thresholds:
(1) An IQ of 50 or below. This is the threshold below which most adults cannot cope outside of an institution. They can typically be taught to read at a 3rd or 4th grade level. However, they cannot normally function in the customary classroom setting, and they require special training programs.
(2) An IQ between 50 and 75. At this level of intelligence, they generally cannot complete elementary school. Most adults will need smarter help in coping with the world.
(3) An IQ between 75 and 105. Children in this IQ range are not generally able to complete a college prep course in high school.
(4) An IQ between 105 and 115. May graduate from college but generally, not with grades that would qualify them for graduate school.
(5) An IQ above 115. No restrictions.

(reference in http://www.geocities.com/rnseitz/Definition_of_IQ.html)

About 63% of the population is below the 105 mark in IQ, and thus not capable of completing a true college prep high school curriculum, according to Jensen.

So we now have the following breakdown:

below 75: Cannot complete 8th grade (5%)
75-80: 8th grade but not high school (5%)
80-90: High school uncertain (15%)
90-105: High school but not college prep (38%)
above 105: High school--college prep (37%)

Thus we can say that reasonable high school graduation rates, in an average community, are between 75% and 90%, no less, no more. That 15% span might be considered negotiable, and is mainly dependent on the rigor (or "dumbing down") of the high school curriculum.

Now, as I said earlier, IQ varies by group, and not all communities have the same IQ distribution. Therefore, if the distribution of a community is lower, the graduation rates should be lower as well. This is a very important point. WE CANNOT HAVE EQUAL GRADUATION RATES, with equal expectations, IN THE PRESENCE OF UNEQUAL IQ DISTRIBUTIONS.

I have long been an advocate of bringing back the eighth grade diploma, once the standard of education in the US, as a baseline level of education. I also advocate an intermediate diploma, say at the 10th grade level, which would give people who otherwise "drop out" a reasonable and achievable goal, and remove from them the stigma of being classified a "drop out" when there are jobs they are perfectly capable of doing. What is so magical about 12 years of school? For some people, 8 is enough, for others, 10 would be enough. Doing this would stem the tide of dumbing down the high school curriculum in order to get more and more people, who are not intellectually qualified, through 12 years of school. Furthermore, I advocate giving these intermediate diplomas other names, that do not relate to the years of school--so that some people may take more time and some take less to complete the requirements. Calling them, say, Basic Education Diploma, and Intermediate Education Diploma would be fine. The high school diploma should also not be rigidly connected with 12 years of school, as I believe there are students capable of attaining that level in considerably less time.

IQ	<75	75–90	90–110	110–125	>125
US population distribution	5	20	50	20	5
Married by age 30	72	81	81	72	67
Out of labor force more than 1 month out of year (men)	22	19	15	14	10
Unemployed more than 1 month out of year (men)	12	10	7	7	2
Divorced in 5 years	21	22	23	15	9
% of children w/ IQ in bottom decile (mothers)	39	17	6	7	-
Had an illegitimate baby (mothers)	32	17	8	4	2
Lives in poverty	30	16	6	3	2
Ever incarcerated (men)	7	7	3	1	0
Chronic welfare recipient (mothers)	31	17	8	2	0
High school dropout	55	35	6	0.4	0
Values are the percentage of each IQ sub-population fitting each descriptor. Compiled by Gottfredson (1997) from Herrnstein & Murray (1994) pp. 171, 158, 163, 174, 230, 180, 132, 194, 247–248, 194, 146 respectively.

(From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ)

What about the correlation between low SES (socio-economic status) and the drop-out rate? We are frequently told that we need to increase the graduation rate because people who drop out are more likely to live in poverty. Of course, people who live in poverty are also more likely to drop out. Is there a cause-and-effect relationshiop? Is it cyclical? I believe that the conventional wisdom is incorrect in this area. Low SES and lack of a high school education are both related to two factors, namely low IQ and cultural attitudes about goal-setting (work ethic). Poverty, itself, is not a predicter of failure in school or in life. Next time you go to your local medical clinic, do an informal survey and find out how many of the doctors grew up in poverty. The results may surprise you. I, myself, grew up in poverty--we did not have an indoor toilet, TV, or built-in bathtub until 1973. Yet, today I hold a Ph.D. in statistics. But many who are more "succesful" than I have come from equally depressed childhoods, or worse ones. Poverty does not cause low IQ, or failure in school or life. Unfortunately in our society, low IQ is a powerful predictor of low SES, which can only be overcome by a strong work ethic. For low SES communities, it is there, and only there, that progress is possible. Students must be taught to work hard and strive for goals, so that they too can lead dignified lives.

Calculating Beyond Their Years

2006-02-13T09:21:00.000-06:00

While we complain about the low performance of American Students in international math comparisons, while we whine that educational standards continually decline, some high school students are getting more and more advanced math educations.

Calculating Beyond Their Years
For More High School Students, AP Math Just Isn't Sufficient
By Daniel de Vise
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, February 6, 2006; B01

More than 500 students in the Montgomery and Fairfax school systems...are taking multivariable calculus, a course traditionally taken by math majors in their second year of college....

Driving the trend is a conviction that algebra...should be taught as soon as students are ready to learn it. Students with a flicker of math talent are taking the high school Algebra I course in eighth grade, if not before.

When the school tapped Moriarty to teach the new course last year, he had to search his basement to find notes he took on multivariable calculus as a sophomore in college almost 30 years ago. "So, we're in the learning stages, and I'm learning, as well as the kids," he said.

Possibly lost along the way: the rich variety of topics in algebra, plane and solid geometry, trigonometry and mathematical applications that once occupied students through much of their journey through high school. "Kids are missing out on some very important concepts that have been pushed aside to make room for calculus," said Alfred S. Posamentier, dean of the School of Education at the City College of New York....

"We got it," a group of girls boasted from the back of the class. One of them, 17-year-old Alice Chen, smiled and said, "I actually understand this."

Are the detractors right? Are we losing "rich variety," breadth, and depth in the curriculum in order to move students further along? Are we advancing students too soon into topics that they are not mature enough to handle?

Ironically, at the same time, colleges are burdened with ever more remedial courses in math (as well as reading and writing) for those students who did not learn even the basics sufficiently for an advanced education. We (the colleges) teach ninth grade algebra, or even 7-8th grade arithmetic, while the high schools teach second-year college math.

You know what I think? We should do away with the rigid 4-year notion about high school. We should define a level of knowledge as a target (something like the GED), and whenever students reach that level they should get their diploma and move on to college. If the state wants to pay for college courses until the age of 18, fine.

Of course, there is a drawback to that idea, and it is this: I am making the assumption that colleges do a better job of teaching college-level material than high schools do. This is sometimes the case, but not always. An experienced high school teacher, even one who has to go back to 30-year old notes, might be more effective at teaching Calc III than an adjunct college instructor with a fresh Master's degree, or a PhD professor whose heart is in research and who teaches only because he has to. However, college teaching horror stories might not be as common as they are popular in the retelling, and the corresponding horror stories about high school teachers who do not know enough and end up instilling students with incorrect concepts are far less likely to be heard.

In fact, college teachers routinely complain about students who have had calculus in high school, but learned it inadequately, either with too little emphasis on concepts (they memorized skills and tricks but never did proofs and cannot explain the meaning of their work) or with too much reliance on calculators, so that basic skills in calculation are underdeveloped.

What about the loss of "rich variety" in topics like geometry and trigonometry? Without knowing the actual curriculum being used, I can't really make a fair comment about the schools in question. However, even before the "calculus push" there was a great deal lost in these topics. Sometime during the 1970's and 80's, high school geometry and trigonometry were gutted and refurbished...and indeed one could question whether the changes have resulted in a richer curriculum or a poorer one. Mathematics has taken a hard hit from the near-removal of proof from the high school curriculum. The new topics that have been added may not be as important or beneficial. It seems clear to me that the changes were made to make math more "accessible" to students (i.e., dumbed down) as we moved to requiring more math for all students. In recent years, there seems to be a trend toward reclaiming some of the lost ground, and courses like "pre-calculus" may, in some cases, be as challenging and comprehensive as anything from the past. But I have seen no evidence that logic and proof have made a comeback in the high school curriculum. Without these, we cannot have a truly "advanced" high school mathematics program.

What do kids learn about politics in school?

2006-01-28T09:08:00.000-06:00

I live in a fairly conservative state that can pretty much be counted on to go Red in the presidential elections. I don't spend a lot of time talking about politics at home, but I thought I said enough to give my kids a pretty good idea where I stand. So it was quite a surprise to me when my 9th grader started making some comments about George Bush on the way home from school one day. The comments were all negative, all the typical liberal anti-Bush line. As I started to counter the things she said, she asked, "You mean you support Bush?"

Hmmmm. Not only didn't anything I said at home sink in, but apparently she was getting a straight one-sided view at school. Now, I know this is happening in other parts of the country, but somehow I was under the impression that things would be different here. I guess not.

Instead of (or in addition to) learning about Cindy Sheehan at school, why don't they learn about Lena Haddix?

Who, you say?

Lean Haddix, at age 72, went to Afganistan as a civilian volunteer to support the troops. She worked in the PX. Later she also went to Iraq. Her message is far more important to America than Cindy Sheehan's. But, so typically, the important messages are ignored in the media and the schools.

Read about Lina Haddix here:
http://newsok.com/article/1721215/?template=

Death Penalty for Rape

2006-01-09T09:42:00.000-06:00

Two girls, one 16 and one 17, were attacked by three men, who forced them to the ground and tried to rape them. The elder girl managed to pull a knife from her pocket, and stabbed her attacker in the hand, then, being attacked again, stabbed one of the men in the chest. He died from the injury.

The girl has been sentenced to death by hanging.

http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=5184

We have far too many people in the US who defend and enable this kind of barbarism. Where is the feminist outcry? Where are the favored sons and daughters of Hollywood? Where are the billionaire bands with their charity concerts?

Soldiers fight Liberal Politicians

2006-01-09T09:10:00.000-06:00

Michelle Malkin posted these links to video from a townhall meeting hosted by representatives Moran and Murtha. Great stuff.

A soldier takes on Murtha and Moran
A veteran tells off Murtha/Moran

For scientists, environmentalists

2005-12-28T12:02:00.000-06:00

This is a must-read article:
http://www.michaelcrichton.com/speeches/complexity/complexity.html

The Closeness of Elections

2005-12-15T10:01:00.000-06:00

I have been asking myself this question for some time, “Why are elections so close?” I am surprised that this topic has not come up in any public forum. While it is not surprising for one particular election to be close, when we see that most elections, year after year, are close, is that not cause for questioning? Doesn’t it defy probabilistic expectations? I think so.

However, I don’t think the reasons are particularly mysterious. I do think they deserve discussion.

Obviously, we know that most campaign money is spent where candidates hope to win. We also know that issues and talking points are chosen to garner the most public support. I would argue that neither of these is good for democracy or for government. In any case, I have a sneaking suspicion that elections are closer than they ought to be, due to campaign manipulations that have nothing to do with issues or the “true” will of the people. It seems to me that these carefully crafted strategies are to blame for the trend of close elections.

Music and Video from the right

2005-11-17T08:25:00.000-06:00

From Bob Dylan to the Dixie Chicks, music has been used in many ways to promote leftist ideas. In Country Music, there has always been a fair amount of patriotic and right-leaning music. But apparently Air America is up in arms because a "rock group is using music to sway the opinion of the youth."

The group is called "The Right Brothers" and the song is:

Lyrics: Bush Was Right
Written by: Frank Highland

Freedom in Afghanistan, say goodbye Taliban
Free elections in Iraq, Saddam Hussein locked up
Osama’s staying underground, Al Qaida now is finding out
America won’t turn and run once the fighting has begun
Libya turns over nukes, Lebanese want freedom, too
Syria is forced to leave, don’t you know that all this means

Chorus
Bush was right!
Bush was right!
Bush was right!

Democracy is on the way, hitting like a tidal wave
All over the middle east, dictators walk with shaky knees
Don’t know what they’re gonna do, their worst nightmare is coming true
They fear the domino effect, they’re all wondering who’s next

Repeat Chorus

Ted Kennedy – wrong!
Cindy Sheehan – wrong!
France – wrong!
Zell Miller – right!

Economy is on the rise kicking into overdrive
Angry liberals can't believe it's cause of W's policies
Unemployment's staying down, Democrats are wondering how
Revenue is going up, can you say "Tax Cuts"

Repeat Chorus

Cheney was right, Condi was right, Rummy was right, Blair was right
You were right, we were right, “The Right” was right and Bush was right
Bush was right!
Bush was right!

© 2005 Pool Guy Music (ASCAP), All rights reserved

You can listen to a preview at
http://www.therightbrothers.com/

Conservatives have a new ad that lays bare the biportisan support for the Iraq war, putting the lie to the Democrat claims that "Bush lied." Watch it at
http://media1.streamtoyou.com/rnc/111505.wmv

And for the entertainment of the math minded (nothing to do with the above) we have the Klein Four Group, graduate students in mathematics and budding musicians:
http://www.collegehumor.com/movies/149448/

Bush Ends Public Education (Just Kidding)

2005-11-16T11:03:00.000-06:00

In her 10/20/2004 column, Michelle Malkin included the following quote:

Meanwhile, a teacher for Kerry complained: "If we lose the White House again, it is very possible we will lose public education."

Well, they "lost." It's been over a year now, and we still have public education. In fact, maybe we ought to take a look at how public education has done during the Bush administration.

Percent of All K-12 Students Enrolled in Public Schools (NCES)
1992--90.85
1999--91.42
2000--91.31
2001--91.19
2002--91.19
2003--91.17 (projected)
2004--91.16 (projected)
2005--91.16 (projected)

(Why is the NCES three years behind in statistics? Sure wish I had the current figures.)

Ron Hutcheson, writing for Common Dreams News Center today, says

In some cases, Bush pushed for spending increases. For example, federal spending on education, a top presidential priority, has increased 65 percent under Bush.

That money isn't being used to reduce the influence of public education.

Meanwhile, programs in school choice, ostensibly supported by the president, appear to have made little progress.

Kavan Peterson, at stateline.org, writes:

Utah in March became the first state since Florida in 1999 to pass a statewide voucher program, though it is limited to special education students. Ohio’s Republican-controlled Legislature is expected to send a proposal to GOP Gov. Bob Taft by June that would build on Cleveland’s existing voucher program. It would make state-funded tuition vouchers available to public school students with poor math and reading scores throughout the state.
Even with these additions, tuition vouchers will be in use within just six states and the District of Columbia . While Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court have given their approval to tuition vouchers, state courts and state lawmakers still are putting up roadblocks.

Lew Rockwell summed it up pretty well back in 2001:

Republicans are cheering Bush’s education bill, but they should ask themselves this critical question: why is Teddy Kennedy smiling?

Women In the NeWs

2005-11-11T08:45:00.000-06:00

Conservative college women have a voice of their own. No longer will they have to grit their teeth and bear it when the media portrays NOW as the sole represenative of women. Now there's NeW.

Out With the Old, in With the N.E.W.
By Jessica Anderson

The glory of feminism, which engulfed waves of young women in the 1960s and ’70s, has increasingly lost its luster with today’s generation, many of whom have observed ts radical swerve to the left.
Many collegiate women have observed the detrimental effects of such attitudes, and just aren’t buying them. Being feminist is as out-of-style as crimped hair and big bangs; conservative college women are exposing today’s feminism for what it is: entangling ideology that needs to be toned down.
Karin Agness, a college senior at the University of Virginia, has become a leader of this endeavor. Tired of feminist propaganda, she founded the Network of Enlightened Women (N.E.W.) to foster education and leadership and advance conservative principles among university women.

A critique of Neoconservatism

2005-11-10T21:31:00.000-06:00

We've Been Neo-Conned
by Rep. Ron Paul, MD

The modern-day, limited-government movement has been co-opted. The conservatives have failed in their effort to shrink the size of government. There has not been, nor will there soon be, a conservative revolution in Washington. Political party control of the federal government has changed, but the inexorable growth in the size and scope of government has continued unabated. The liberal arguments for limited government in personal affairs and foreign military adventurism were never seriously considered as part of this revolution.