A1: Lehi to Eagle Mountain VOTE Paula Hill: http://paulahill4u.wordpress.com
A2: Alpine/Highland/Cedar Hills VOTE Wendy Hart: www.WendyHart2010.com
A3: American Fork VOTE Tim Osborn (Incumbent): http://www.ElectTimO.com
A5: Orem VOTE Scott Bell: www.Bell4Schoolboard.com
We believe these candidates will be the voice of the public to the Alpine School District administration because they will….
- Challenge the status quo of dismissing parental concerns that are at odds with the administration’s agenda;
- Ask the tough questions and act in their proper elected role as the check and balance to the administration;
- Not allow our district to become a social laboratory for unproven math, science or history curricula, but will support proven teaching methods and programs;
- Leave the job of “enculturating” to the discretion and wisdom of parents;
- Insist on conservative fiscal management, where raising taxes is a last resort
Thank you so much to the candidates that are standing up to the establishement and publically challenging their philosophies. For asking the hard questions and for being willing to put yourselves out there and trying to BE the change that we really need. I hope that the parents in this valley WAKE UP and see these progressive/socialist agenda pushers for what they are and vote the offenders out.
How does using only “proven methods and programs” fix education? It sounds like we will be doing more of the same. There seems to be a lot of data to show that the “proven methods and programs” are failing our education system nation-wide.
What are these proven methods and programs? How did they become proven? Are you taking methods and programs that were “social” experiments in other districts and wanting to use them here?
Will this comment be posted, unlike others I know have been submitted? or do you people not want to hear about any opposition to your views? If that is the case then I am very scared to have these Candidates elected.
Bob, your first question is perplexing. “Proven” here means methods which have been used in other schools and districts with much success. On the other hand, “more of the same” would be using such methods as Investigations which has been a terrible failure here in this district and in California where they threw it out years ago when test scores plummeted. It has been thrown off of Utah’s State list of approved curriculum for the same reason, although ASD still implements it. Read the candidates’ websites to find out more about the programs they wish to endorse. As far as your last comment not being posted, try using a real email address instead of a fake anti-Oak fraudulent one, and try to keep your comments civil. This is not a site for trolls or rude remarks. Very few comments are not posted, and the only reason would be because of the rudeness and uncivility of the blogger. Fortunately, there have only been a couple. Yours was one.
How is my comment uncivil?
You clearly missed my point about how the programs are “more of the same”. I was referring to the fact that all of the programs that candidates are proposing have been used in other patts of nation and have not been proven to raise test scores at all. I was making a reference to the fact that many of the supporters of these candidates claim that public education is failing our kids in this country. Now they want to use programs that are the reason public schools are failing. At least investigations Math was trying something different to raise scores and help kids better understand math. I agree that type of math failed, but at least they tried something. “More of the same” is doing what other districts have done and have not raised test scores- like Singapore Math in the US.
As for my email address, it is real. Email me at it and see if I respond.
“Bob” your comment above was civil so it was approved. A prior one was not, so it was not.
I applaud ASD for trying Investigations math and seeing if it would improve scores. That’s not an issue to me. The problem as many parents see it is as follows:
1) They didn’t pilot an experimental program before implementing it district wide
2) When teachers knew their students needed the times tables and long division, the district confiscated textbooks at numerous schools (4 known by name) to ensure teachers had no resources available
3) Teachers contracts were threatened at a couple schools if they didn’t stop teaching the times tables
4) Parents were told by the district “don’t teach your children the times tables at home or you will mess them up.”
5) From 2001 when the district implemented Investigations to 2005 when my oldest finally hit 3rd grade and I learned what she was missing, the failure rate in the district was skyrocketing at all grades. http://oaknorton.com/imathresults26.cfm
They had every opportunity to dump this program but in their pride, having battled one large set of parents from 2001-2004, they dug in instead of listening and wouldn’t let go. They still wouldn’t let go till 2007 even though it was a proven failure.
6) ASD repeatedly told parents “all the studies show this is the best way to teach.” When asked to prove they had studies, they couldn’t produce a single study. http://oaknorton.com/grama2.cfm
7) Multiple people went into the ASD office and complained about the math program. I personally spoke with 4 of them who were told by a district administrator, “you’re the only one that’s ever complained about the math program.” This is a pathetic attempt to cause a parent to feel isolated and drop the issue.
8 ) State Superintendent Patti Harrington removes Investigations math from the approved program list.
http://www.oaknorton.com/mathupdates/20071020.cfm
9) The district said they would give all schools a choice, but then they lied about how Saxon math met the state standards to make it easy for teachers to tell parents it was a horrible program and not to pick it, even though 8 of the top 10 math schools in the state use the program and the state has on file a 100% correlation.
http://www.oaknorton.com/mathupdates/20070308.cfm
http://www.oaknorton.com/mathupdates/20070829.cfm
10) Immediately after telling the public they had replaced Investigations with Scott Foresman math to lull the public back to sleep, they put Investigations books on teacher’s desks the week before school and then set right back to using it for all professional development. Superintendent Henshaw claims the books were “complimentary” from the publisher. That always happens with those generous publishers.
http://www.oaknorton.com/mathupdates/20070823.cfm
http://oaknorton.com/investigations_continued.cfm
11) After all the studies ASD claimed supported their position, I showed them Project Follow Through in 2006 or so and the abysmal job that constructivism does educating children. Then in 2009, the Department of Education released a study that included Investigations, Scott Foresman Addison Wesley, Saxon, and Math Expressions. SURPRISE! Investigations and SFAW were the low performers. ASD now has a study to rely on.
12) ASD claimed to bring balanced math to Investigations by mixing two low performing programs. Scores have gone up. Not a surprise since they now use the times tables and long division.
13) Singapore math happens to have a very positive track record and nobody, not even me, is suggesting a district wide implementation. I’ve been suggesting a pilot program to see how well it works. It takes more effort than regular programs but all indications show very positive signs where it is used here in the states.
http://www.utahsmathfuture.com
14) For 5 of the current school board members to have been on the board since 2002 and earlier and have witnessed all of this (which I made sure to show them every bit of this from 2005-2009) and never done anything about it, is a dereliction of duty. They should resign and let someone else step into the watchdog role. Why do parents have to police the district when the board is supposed to be elected to do it for us? The board aren’t watchdogs, they’re little lap dogs doing whatever the district tells them to. Mostly “sit, play dead.”
Susan You are doing a fantastic Job. Keep up the great work. I am working hard to talk to people I meet to share your message that woke me up to what is going on. I know it is a lonely hard road, but hang in there. Eventually truth will win out, especially with people like you who do such a great job. Thank you, Thank you, Thank you.
I can’t speak for all grades but regarding 2nd grade… I found the Scott Foresman math books to be terrible for practicing math concepts. Why, you ask? As a teacher, I know that I need to teach the concept first, then go over the first two problems WITH the students and last they will be prepared to practice on their own what we learned together as a class. But each page in the expensive color pages of Scott Foresman 2nd grade math books includes only 2 or 3 problems per math concept. The rest of the page is filled up with many other disconnected math concepts.
For this reason, I have found it far more useful to use math pages with a full page for each math concept that I wish to teach, I can use pages on the Internet or invent my own pages or I can use an Investigations workbook which is honestly pretty good at following the state core of math objectives and in providing a good full page for practice of math concepts.