David Safier by David Safier This is a fascinating idea: a typeface to make it easier for people with dyslexia to read. It's designed by a Dutch company, and its developer has dyslexia, so his design is based both on research and personal experience. For any skeptics out there, dyslexia isn't some "My dog ate my homework" … Read more
by David Safier
Drafts of the proposed curriculum for TUSD's new multicultural courses for high schools have been released, covering courses for grades 9, 11 and 12. You can find links to the 11 draft documents on Three Sonorans.
This is complex, controversial material which I haven't looked at in the depth it deserves or discussed with others, so what you'll read here are preliminary thoughts. I reserve my Emersonian right ("A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines") to change my mind on any of these issues without notice.
My sense is, the curricula for the 11 courses — or at least 10 of the 11 courses — are good starting points for teachers. They combine prescriptive elements — topics to be covered and objectives to be met — with lots of examples of ways teachers can achieve the curricula's goals. Teachers for any of these courses have lots of latitude in the materials and approaches they use within the general guidelines. It's easy to overlook the teachers' latitude because most of the "Explanations and Examples" under each broad subject heading begin with the phrase, "Students will." People who aren't familiar with school jargon might mistakenly think that's a mandate that teachers must have students perform all the tasks on the list. In fact, the "Students will" phrasing is one I began seeing in the 1970's under the heading of "behavioral objectives." The purpose is to describe what students will do and what they will learn rather than stating a lofty, abstract goal. Each of the examples says to teachers, "Here's what the students will do if you choose to use this approach." No teacher could possibly go through the whole cafeteria menu of "Students will" examples for each course, nor would anyone want to.
I also don't get the sense that teachers are limited to teaching only the items mentioned in the curricula. Since all the courses are to be taught from a multicultural viewpoint or from a Mexican-American or African-American viewpoint (the U.S. History and U.S. Government courses have 3 separate curricula, one for each viewpoint), those are the aspects of the courses that are emphasized in the curricula. It's safe to assume a social studies teacher knows how to teach a standard U.S. History or Government course, so these curricula give teachers guidelines for infusing the courses with a specific viewpoint. If there's any question, the State Standards and the Common Core Standards are listed side-by-side with the Explanations and Examples.
by David Safier In another cautionary tale about the nuclear energy industry, the San Onofre nuclear plant in southern California is closing. The reason is, steam generators installed recently had dangerous levels of damage to hundreds of tubes. [T]ests found some generator tubes so badly eroded that they could fail and possibly release radiation, a … Read more
by David Safier
The conservative "education reform" movement has two central Foundation Myths. The first is that our traditional public schools are awful. The second is that charters and private schools are better. Putting them together, conservatives conclude we need to get our children out of the "failing government schools" and into "successful charters and private schools." It's an elegant argument, but it's wrong on both counts. In the first episode of the new cable TV show, "Education: the Rest of the Story," I debunk the myth that today's public schools are failing. In the latest episode, I take apart the myth that charter and private schools do a better job than traditional public schools.
In the video, I bring together a number of studies comparing the three types of schools. The overwhelming conclusion is, it's basically a wash. You get statistically significant variations between student achievement in the three types of schools but no consistent trend. Now traditional public school students fare a bit better, now charter school students, now private school students. If "government schools" with their entrenched bureaucracies and teachers' unions were the problem, charters and private schools should shine by comparison. But they don't. No one in the public or private sector has managed to create a way of teaching our children that is consistently superior to other methods and is reproduceable in other schools.
You can watch the 10 minute video below the fold, but first, here's a list of the studies I cite.
You can watch the video below the fold.
by David Safier In a segment on the second episode of "Education: the Rest of the Story," Ann-Eve Pedersen goes over the 2011 U.S. Census figures that detail how much each state spends on education. Ann-Eve has made herself an expert on school funding. She's president of the Arizona Education Parent Network which spearheaded Prop … Read more