Summary: The Terrible 2's (There are 52 weeks in a year . . . well, you get it.) Jokes: Buddaist Monk walks into a restaurant. What can I get you? Make me one with everything. Thanks Steven On Our Mind: Thanks to you, we're a Top 20 podcast in K-12 education. Please help us by voting on iTunes. From the Twitterverse: Advisory: Masters of Disaster: http://www.redcross.org/preparedness/educatorsmodule/ed-cd-6-8-main-menu-1.html Try this with your Advisory: Webspotlight: A National Yardstick for Gauging Math Progress States Show Uneven Performance; Even Top Achievers Fall Short By Christopher B. Swanson http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2010/01/14/17math.h29.html?tkn=R[MF4Qzo6orsW67cZxBzNGAHZdia9LvSag4Z http://www.edweek.org/media/ew/qc/2010/17overview.h29.math.pdf Debunking the Case for National Standards By Alfie Kohn I keep thinking it can’t get much worse, and then it does. A decade ago, many of us thought we had hit bottom—until the floor gave way and we found ourselves in a basement we didn’t know existed. Now every state had to test every student every year in grades 3-8, judging them (and their schools) almost exclusively by test scores and hurting the schools that needed the most help. Ludicrously unrealistic proficiency targets suggested that the federal law responsible was intended to sabotage rather than improve public education. * Let’s be clear about this latest initiative, which is being spearheaded by politicians, corporate CEOs, and companies that produce standardized tests. First, what they’re trying to sell us are national standards. They carefully point out that the effort isn’t driven by the federal government. But if all, or nearly all, states end up adopting identical mandates, that distinction doesn’t amount to much. * Second, these standards will inevitably be accompanied by a national standardized test. * Third, a relatively small group of experts—far from classrooms—will be designing standards, test questions, and curricula for the rest of us. Advocates of national standards say they want all (American) students to attain excellence, no matter where they happen to live. The problem is that excellence is being confused with entirely different attributes, such as uniformity, rigor, specificity, and victory. ...common-core-standards Web site, don’t bother looking for words like “exploration,” “intrinsic motivation,” “developmentally appropriate,” or “democracy.” Instead, the very first sentence contains the phrase “success in the global economy,” followed immediately by “America’s competitive edge.” Yes, we want excellent teaching and learning for all—although our emphasis should be less on achievement (read: test scores) than on students’ achievements. Offered a list of standards, we should scrutinize each one, but also ask who came up with them and for what purpose. Is there room for discussion and disagreement—and not just by experts—regarding what, and how, we’re teaching and how authentic our criteria are for judging success? Or is this a matter of “obey or else,” with tests to enforce compliance? http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2010/01/14/17kohn-comm.h29.html?tkn=WXUFzMageZQH55f62llSx04pEy9h1dTAV7g0 Epson has new "short throw" data projectors. http://www.eschoolnews.com/2009/11/04/epson-introduces-two-ultra-short-throw-projectors-designed-with-k-12-education-in-mind/ NMSA09: Teaching in 4-D: Rick Wormeli Closing Keynote Expertise Creativity Collaboration Events & Happenings:
