Politico has published the article The Plot Against Public Education: How millionaires and billionaires are ruining our schools.

The amount of money in play is breathtaking. And the fiascos it has wrought put a spotlight on America’s class divide and the damage that members of the elite, with their money and their power and their often misguided but unshakable belief in their talents and their virtue, are inflicting on the less financially fortunate.

Those who are genuinely interested in improving the quality of education for all American youngsters are faced with two fundamental questions: First, how long can school systems continue to pursue market-based reforms that have failed year after demoralizing year to improve the education of the nation’s most disadvantaged children? And second, why should a small group of America’s richest individuals, families, and foundations be allowed to exercise such overwhelming—and often such toxic—influence over the ways in which public school students are taught?

This may be a bit about the other side of the education debate compared to the articles I have been posting lately.  I think it does point out how the problems of concentration of power apply to education. (However, the Bill Gates experiment seems to indicate that breaking up concentration just for the sake of breaking up concentration is not a viable approach either.)

Our problem may be that when we see some schools, school districts, cities, or states performing poorly with respect to their peers, we think of centralizing authority over schools so that the poor performers would not be allowed to continue performing poorly.  We fail to entertain the thought that what we may actually be doing is preventing excellent schools from performing excellently.

We may be falling for the “Lake Woebegon Fallacy” in which we think we can get all students to be above average.  Perhaps what we need to realize is that we have to raise the average, but there will always be a  statistical distribution of performance measured at any and all levels.  To narrow the distribution it is  always easier to get the exceptionally good schools to stop being exceptionally good than it is to make the exceptionally bad schools to stop being exceptionally bad.   Taking the easy way out is not getting us to the goal we really want, which is to raise the average by making improvements almost everywhere.

The Boston Globe has the article Are teachers really ready for the Common Core?

This article adds some information that is needed in this debate, but it is only a piece of what is needed.

In reading some recent articles and seeing some videos, I have started to gain an understanding of what the Common Core is trying to achieve in math.  (See my previous post, Arkansas mom destroys Common Core in four powerful minutes)  That understanding alone does not answer the question about how much research has gone into figuring out if the new teaching methods work.  As I keep reading, I find that research has been done, but I haven’t yet read enough details on what research was done and how it was carried out to know if I think the research was sufficient.

Questions I would like answered include the following: Have the new methods been tested on a broad range of students to see if the new method works for all, for most, for many, or just a few?  Has the research included a study of how to train teachers to teach the new method?  Again all, most, many, or none.  Has the research analyzed the impact of parents “helping” their children with homework for all kinds of parents.  Different kinds of parents might include the highly talented mathematicians who learned by different methods, to the average parent, to the parent with not enough time, to the uneducated parent. Has the research studied the best methods to roll-out the new program – all at once, a little at a time, school by school, city by city, state by state, or the whole country all at once.

Changing the education system of an entire country requires much more thought than changing how one teacher teaches a course.  Has the thought been done at the top, through the middle, and down to the bottom of the implementation pyramid?

I was intrigued by the following example question.

A right circular cone is shown in the figure. Point A is the vertex of the cone and point B lies on the circumference of the base of the cone.

The cone has a height of 24 units and a diameter of 20 units. What is the distance from point A to point B?

____ units

It took me a few seconds to see that this was not as complicated a question as I first thought.  It took me a few more seconds to figure out how to do calculate the answer in my head without any difficult arithmetic.

To check your answer with the right one, see the answer on the PARCC web site.

Perhaps this isn’t as controversial a question as the examples in my previous post.

Jessica Fairbrother Trent shared the video below on her Facebook page.

It comes from the article Arkansas mom destroys Common Core in four powerful minutes.

I was skeptical about the presentation that this “mom” made. I wasn’t sure she was giving the whole story. Before I got too excited about the push for the “Common Core”, I wanted more proof.

Ironically, a feature of Facebook, that I have been thinking of turning off, showed me a link to what it thought was a related story.

About That ‘Common Core’ Math Problem Making the Rounds on Facebook… This isn’t exactly the same example as discussed in the video, but I think it is close enough to make you want to reconsider what you think you may have learned in the video.

It is worthwhile to think about and discuss whether or not these new teaching techniques are the best way to teach these subjects. However, before doing that thinking and having that discussion, it pays to have some idea of what these techniques are trying to accomplish.

From my own experience, I did not learn the method of making change as described in the second article until I went to work in my father’s drugstore, and he taught it to me. I have noticed that there are very many clerks today who depend on the cash register to figure it out, and have no idea on their own of how to make change.

The classic case happened to me a little while ago. I bought something for $12.10. I handed the clerk a $20 bill and 10 cents. The clerk gave me back the 10 cents, and then proceeded to give me $7.90 in change. I don’t think I tried to mention to the clerk that $7.90 plus 10 cents is the same as $8.00. Rather than give me back my 10 cents, and then giving me $7.90, she could have just given me $8.00. (The trick my father taught me is to consider the 10 cents as paying for the $0.10 of the amount due, and then make change for the $12.00 that was left of the amount due out of the $20.00 that was left after taking care of the $0.10 I had handed to the clerk. Trying to do the math in your head, what is $20.10 minus $12.10, was too tricky in the situation where you were trying to make change quickly, and could not write the problem down on a piece of paper.)

The actual process of my education that I think is relevant to the discussion is what I did on my own while learning arithmetic and mathematics. I would frequently think about different ways to arrive at the same answer, and then ponder why these different ways always gave the same result.

When I started to learn about decimals, I would often think about working through the same problem by using fractions. It always amazed me that using different digits in the two processes, the results always came out to the equivalent answer. For instance we have the decimal “0.5” and the fraction ½. If you divide the number “1” by either of these two representations, you get the same answer.

The decimal algorithm I learned was 1.0 / 0.5 – shift the decimals in the two number to convert the problem into 10.0 / 5.0 = 2.0. For dividing by a fraction 1 / ½, you turn the fraction over, and multiply it by the dividend 2/1 X 1 = 2. One method used the digits 1 and 5. The other method used the digits 1 and 2, but either way the answer was 2.

So what I think the common core is trying do is to teach people to think about math in different ways, rather than leaving it up to the imagination of the few students who are interested enough or creative enough to think of these things on their own.

Whether that is a good pedagogical technique for all students, I cannot judge. I do not know the research that went into deciding that it was a good approach. I hope to heck that there is some research on the effectiveness of the technique that backs up the decision to introduce it into classrooms across the country. Do any of my readers know the nature of such research if it does exist?

When I cross posted this on Facebook, Facebook offered the interesting article, 2+2=What? Parents Rail Against Common Core Math, as related. It at least gives a hint that there is an answer to my question above the line.

Here is the article, This Is What Happens When A Kid Leaves Traditional Education, for you to read.

However, in this blog post, I thought I would just include the two videos that were in the article.

Hackschooling makes me happy: Logan LaPlante at TEDxUniversityofNevada

Sir Ken Robinson: Do schools kill creativity?

Naked Capitalism has the article Bill Black Discusses “Too Big to Jail” on Bill Moyers.

Black goes well beyond mortgage fraud to discuss the gamut of bank abuses the Administration has chosen to ignore and why this posture is guaranteed to cause a future financial meltdown. This is a worthwhile segment in and of itself, and is also a good overview for friends and colleagues who are mystified that as to why the banksters got off scot free.

If you don’t listen to and understand what is told to you in this interview, then you will have no clue as to what is going wrong in the world, let alone this country.

As Bill Black said in the interview,

There is no threat to capitalism like capitalists.

The trouble is that, as in the great depression, we will all be taken down with the system.

If you need any further reason to understand why Hillary Clinton must not be our next President, then I don’t know what could possibly be said to you.

Democracy Now has the transcript of the  interview Jeremy Scahill on Obama’s Orwellian War in Iraq: We Created the Very Threat We Claim to be Fighting.

JEREMY SCAHILL: I mean, Hillary Clinton is-I actually think, is more hawkish than Barack Obama, and Barack Obama has emerged as a pretty significant hawk in terms of his policies. He can talk all he wants about, you know, how he wants to change and reset relationships around the world; this has been a total militarized presidency. Hillary Clinton, when she was secretary of state, acted as though she was also sort of secretary of defense. And her State Department was deeply involved with plotting covert action around the world, using the State Department as cover for CIA operations. And, you know, the Clintons, Bill and Hillary Clinton, are two of the most fierce projectors of the politics of the American empire, and they also have very close relationships with some of the most nefarious characters from the Bush family. So, you know, those two families together, the Bushes and the Clintons, it’s almost like a monarchy in this country. I mean, Jeb Bush very well may run. I mean, it’s unclear what-you know, George W. Bush said the other day that he’s putting pressure on his brother to try to run for president. But, you know, Hillary Clinton is a fierce neoliberal who believes in backing up the so-called “hidden hand of the free market” with merciless, iron-fisted military policies.

Among all the scary things about this interview is the thought that we Democrats might actually get Hillary Clinton elected as the next President of the USA.

At least the investment advice is good news. My investment in Lockhead Martin is up 29.1% since investing in it in November 2013. That is even counting the big drop this week.

Naked Capitalism has the article David Quentin and Nicholas Shaxson: The “Patent Box” – Proof That the UK is a Rogue State in Corporate Tax.

Perhaps most importantly, it is the very existence of intellectual property rights that spurs innovation, so there is no need for them to have a special extra subsidy. However socially useful a patented technology may or may not be, a patent is a privately-held and transferable monopoly over the commercial exploitation of an idea, and that monopoly only exists because the state chooses to enforce it. Bringing into being and protecting such privately-held monopolies is a way for the state to reward human creativity. Owning such an asset is not something the state needs to subsidize with a tax break; simply owning it should be enough.

This article makes it clearer to me than it ever has been the nature of the fight to protect “intellectual property rights.”  You hear President Obama tout this protection in the trade deals he wants to foist on us.  He excoriates countries like China for not protecting our companies’ “intellectual property rights” inside China.  In fact, “intellectual property rights” has turned into another scam to allow the oligarchs to avoid their fare share of taxes.  They are using this as a weapon against us, and want us to fight for their ability to use it against us.

I received an email from Maura Healey in which she said the following:

Together, we can set the record straight on Martha’s life-long fight for the safety of the children of Massachusetts.
.
.
.
I worked for Martha Coakley in the Attorney General’s office. I saw her fighting against human trafficking. Making our children safer online. Enforcing child labor laws. Keeping families in their homes. Passing an anti-bullying law.

I don’t know where Charlie Baker was, but Martha Coakley was there.

Trust me, if you want a champion for children and families in this state, then we have a clear choice – Martha Coakley.

Here is the video to counteract an ad for Charley Baker that Maura Healey thought was disgusting.

Remember that Charlie Baker is the one who wants to solve Massachusetts ills on the backs of the poor. He is focused on welfare fraud that is tiny, and expects to solve it by insisting that welfare recipients go out and get non-existent jobs. He wants to promote a public housing plan that will boot needy people right out of their homes and make them homeless.

If ever there were a heartless Republican that should not be allowed anywhere near the Governor’s office, this is the one. This is an all out class war of the rich and powerful few against the rest of us. I hope you don’t get tricked onto being a soldier for the other side. If you have hopes of being fairly well off some day, you should know that the Republican plan is not the one that will get you there (at least not if you have any scruples at all.)

New Economic Perspectives has the article A “Perfectly Legal” Scam is Perfectly Unacceptable to Real Bank Supervisors by William K. Black.  Now that you have heard the words of the culprits from my previous posts, let us bring in an expert to tell you exactly what is so wrong with what they did.

Let me give you some excerpts from William Black’s biography from  University of Missouri Kansas City.

Professor Black was litigation director of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board, deputy director of the FSLIC, SVP and general counsel of the Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco, and senior deputy chief counsel, Office of Thrift Supervision. He was deputy director of the National Commission on Financial Institution Reform, Recovery and Enforcement.

So when you get an explanation of what the Fed bank supervisors did wrong, you know it is the voice of experience from a bank regulator who has done it right.    He explains several episodes of the financial crisis that are peripheral to (but essential background information about) the current brouhaha over Goldman Sachs before he gets into their latest fraud.

In case you don’t get to read the article, I will just show you the excerpt that shows exactly how derelict the bank supervisors were.

So, it’s “apparent” that the deal was a scam. Silva knew it was a scam. His team knew it was a scam. As a former senior banking lawyer/regulator who worked with real supervisors let me assure the reader that there can be real supervisors and that no change in law was required for Silva to block a “perfectly legal” scam designed to “artificially enhance” a bank’s reported “capital.” Such a deal is “unsafe and unsound” and it abets an “unsafe and unsound” act. We would have ordered Goldman to terminate the scam and if its senior managers refused to comply we would have brought a “cease and desist” order against Goldman and a “removal and prohibition” order against the senior managers. We would have won both actions. The federal banking regulators have explicit statutory power to act against “unsafe and unsound” banking practices.

I think the point is that the system including the FED is corrupt.  However, the likes of Rand Paul haven’t a clue as to exactly what is wrong.  If you want a Senator to go after the Fed and try to fix it, Elizabeth Warren is one of the people you want.

The Daily Kos has the article Wendy Davis knocks it out of the park in debate with Greg Abbott which features the video below.

For those with an interest in Texas politics (like those born there, or married to someone who was born their, or who has a daughter that was born there) this is a very hopeful sign of how Texas might be improving.

This is also interesting for those who want an example of a very effective debater. I wonder if the people of Texas are listening.