DYSLEXIA, TEACHER PREP DYSFUNCTION & CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT TARGETS

11-7-16

Greetings Council on Educator  Development (CED) Contact Matt Ludwig, DE Director Ryan Wise and all—

Matt, Please forward this post to all CED council members listed farther below, even though it is linked on http://www.iowalive.net/ .  Thank you very much. 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF EDUCATION DAMAGE TO IOWA KIDS SINCE NEW MATH IN 1960s

For the first time ever, the following table shows the best available numbers for the total education damage done to Iowa kids since new math was introduced in 1960s.  The 70 YEAR and TEEN MIND DEVELOPMENT charts on  website http://www.iowalive.net/teenmind1.htm show unrefuted evidence of the damage--but not the total damage done to Iowa kids shown in this table.  Primary contributors to the damage in rank order are also shown.

TABLE RANKS ‘EDUCATION’ TARGETS FOR INCLUSION IN CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT

IF EDUCATION DAMAGE TO IOWA KIDS SINCE 1960 ISN'T CRIMINAL, WHAT IS?  Source:  Iowalive 11-7-16

 

Total Number of IA Kids Significantly Education Damaged Since 1960

Average Lifetime Reduction in Their Standard of Living

Total Loss of Their Lifetime Incomes is at Least

655,000

19%

$15,065,000,000

 

RANK

Damage Contributors—Class Action Lawsuit Targets

% of Damage Contributed

 

1

Iowa Testing Programs at University of Iowa—Dumbing Tests & Exclusion of Low Test Scores

21%

2

Colleges That Taught the Teachers & Administrators

19%

3

ISEA Teacher Union

13%

4

Department of Education

12%

5

School  Boards

9%

6

Superintendents

4%

7

Federal Government

3%

8

Defective Students Blamed by 'Educators'

3%

9

Principals

2%

10

Teachers

2%

11

State Board of Education

2%

12

Parents Who Were 'Educated' in the Public Schools

1%

13

Governors

1%

14

State Legislators

1%

15

Area Education Agencies

1%

16

Board of Educational Examiners

1%

NA

All Others

5%

TOTAL

100%

Numbers Were Derived With Iowalive's Proprietary Algorithms & Database

Anyone Claiming to Have Better Numbers is Asked to Provide Them

 

MORE EVIDENCE OF EDUCATION DAMAGE TO KIDS

In addition to the post farther below, more evidence justifying a class action lawsuit against public education is contained in the following Dyslexia and Teacher Prep Dysfunction  study released 9 September 2016: http://www.nctq.org/commentary/article.do?id=290  and  The Dyslexia Dilemma: A History of Ignorance, Complacency and Resistance in Colleges of Education  http://childhood-developmental-disorders.imedpub.com/the-dyslexia-dilemma-a-history-of-ignorance-complacency-and-resistance-in-colleges-of-education.pdf   released in 2016.    

Dyslexia and Teacher Prep Dysfunction”

09/08/2016

Is it too much to ask that professionals stay abreast of the research? The authors of a recently published study, "The Dyslexia Dilemma," don't think it is and the extended title of the study suggests the reasons why without mincing words: "A History of Ignorance, Complacency and Resistance in Colleges of Education."[1] The study highlights the fact that the Science of Reading instruction is neither studied nor taught in teacher prep programs.

For 20 percent of children, reading is the most complicated, difficult endeavor they will face probably until adulthood. Often these children who struggle to learn to read are labeled "dyslexic." The term has been medicalized into a neurological syndrome across the board. The authors of this study, led by David Hurford, contend that these children are simply not being properly taught. The authors' dissatisfaction with the failure of teacher preparation programs to teach the science of reading to aspiring teachers almost rises to the level of outrage—as well it should.

In spite of decades of research and legislation going back to the 1980s' A Nation at Risk, the 1990's America's Schools Act, the Goals 2000: Educate America Act, the 2001 National Reading Panel Report, the 2002 No Child Left Behind Act, and the Common Core State Standards initiative, reading achievement in the United States remains stagnant. By NAEP measures, reading achievement remains at 1992 levels. Well over 50 percent of children in grades 4, 8, and 12 do not read at a proficient level. Even the attempted "end run" of a couple decades of teaching to the test has not caused the scores to budge.”

…”Nonetheless, a survey of hundreds of teachers revealed serious gaps in teachers' knowledge of basic scientific findings. It's especially lacking when it comes to their need to understand the structural phonology of language and its relationship to learning to read. Only 20 percent in a sample of over 700 teachers could segment words into speech sounds, for example. The teachers surveyed reported that they had never received formal instruction in phonological processing.”

…”In the same way that teachers cannot teach what they have not been taught, neither can college instructors. The difference is that college instructors have a responsibility to be on the cusp of research. Both the ignorance and culpability are systemic in colleges of education.

In addition to documenting the pervasive weaknesses in reading found in most Ed.D. and Ph.D. programs, Hurford et al point to the persistence of myth in teacher preparation, the most insidious of all being the idea that learning to read is a natural, innate process—the myth that gave rise to the scientifically discredited and abject failure of the "Whole Language" approach to reading instruction. “

Hurford D, Hurford J, Head K, Keiper M, Nitcher S, Renner L. (2016) "The Dyslexia Dilemma: A History of Ignorance, Complacency and Resistance in colleges of Education." Journal of Childhood & Developmental Disorders. ISSN 2472-1786 Vol. 2 Num. 3:26

Sincerely,

Iowalive   A  growing network of volunteer citizens and professionals for improving Iowa

From: iowalive9@q.com [mailto:iowalive9@q.com]
Sent: Friday, November 04, 2016 12:34 PM
To: matt.ludwig@iowa.gov; ryan.wise@iowa.gov

Subject: SCORECARD FOR IA COUNCIL ON EDUCATOR DEVELOPMENT (CED) RECOMMENDATIONS

 Greetings CED Contact Matt Ludwig, DE Director Ryan Wise and all—

 Matt, Please forward this post to all CED council members listed farther below, even though it will be linked on http://www.iowalive.net/ .  Thank you very much. 

The below scorecard scores the council’s 5 recommendations (WHICH ARE LIKE A HOBBY, WITH NO MENTION OF ANY RESULTS EXPECTATIONS OR COSTS) in the 24  page CED report  https://www.educateiowa.gov/sites/files/ed/documents/Council%20on%20Educator%20Development%20Task%20Force%20Report%202016.pdf .  It clearly shows the council members are still operating in the “caveman days” of the past 60 years, with no grasp of what No Child left Behind (NCLB)  and the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) authorities and compelling evidence are telling them.  They would improve Iowa student achievement by at least 30% within 5 years, for less than 1% net increase in cost. Schools must stop spending money on teaching methods that aren’t working.

1.    Use a concept-based curriculum,

2.    Learn to effectively teach the concepts to all student learning styles, and

3.    Strategically assess (test)  the effectiveness of both of these rather than falsely blaming students (which is discrimination and deprives them of their civil rights to an education).

The council’s neglect of relying on strategic testing completely fails to assess the type of test used.  The reason for the change to tests developed outside of Iowa is for the purpose of probing student proficiencies in understanding concepts and their applications – which the council and other Iowa educators clearly lack the ability to understand and achieve (as well as to design any tests like this). 

 Using more than one of these tests (at different and multiple times during the school year) adequately tells whether or not teachers are being effective.  In the “caveman days”, Iowa teachers would get the content of the Iowa Assessments – based completely on memorized factoids – and teach to the test to make themselves look good (and use students whose learning style was not compatible with memorization as the scapegoats--rather than assessing the entire process) – thus completely wasting class time.  The effective teaching of concepts means students do not have to be prepped to take the tests – something Iowa educators fail to understand.

 It is appearing increasingly likely that an ACLU lawsuit is going to be necessary to put a stop to the embedded discrimination in the education theories used by Iowa educatorsSimilarly, Iowa Core reading requirements must be abandoned to allow K12.com and other capable online teaching methods to replace Iowa’s failed teaching methods.

 CED COUNCIL PERFORMANCE SCORES

 The average Integrity Index Score for the council is 45 on a scale of 0 to 1,000  tops, where 40 is grand larceny, as shown in the table below.  It’s average operating efficiency is 11%, derived as  posted on http://www.iowalive.net/deriveopeff.htm .  The average state reading ranking of the school districts represented on the  council is about 230, of 335 schools-- http://www.iowalive.net/readingallstested15-16.htm .   Anyone claiming to have better numbers is asked to provide them.  This council is not the first team at all.  Not even close.  These are good reasons why the numbers in the table below are horrible. 

 HORRIBLE SCORECARD FOR IA COUNCIL ON EDUCATOR DEVELOPMENT (CED) RECOMMENDATIONS

IOWA SCHOOLS NEED TO GREATLY IMPROVE—NOT CONTINUE PAST FAILURES!!

THE WORDS ‘IMPROVE’ OR ‘COST’, ARE NOT USED IN ANY RECOMMENDATION!!

Council on Educator Development Recommendations Are a Waste of Time and Money.  Source:  Iowalive  11-3-16

Integrity Index Score Rank

Council on Educator Development Recommendations

Estimated Total 5 Year Cost

Avg. % Change in Student Math, Reading & Science Test Scores In 5 Years

Avg. Integrity Index Score

1

Council on Educator Development Recommendation 3: Continue to rely on the use of multiple measures, including to but not limited to, an array of indicators of student learning outcomes related to a targeted goal(s). (See Appendix 8.)

$7,000,000

3%

150

2

Council on Educator Development Recommendation 4:  Continue the use of a balanced evaluation system that includes annual accountability in the form of the Development Plan (IPDP) and a comprehensive three-year review for all teachers. CED Individual Professional recommends the same system for all administrators.

$1,500,000

2%

45

3

Council on Educator Development Recommendation 2:  Formally certify and support evaluators to ensure fidelity of implementation of the improved statewide educator development system by changing the current evaluator system.

$5,000

1%

7

4

Council on Educator Development Recommendation 1: Continue to support collaborative and reflective practices that include constructive feedback.

$3,000

1%

5

5

Council on Educator Development Recommendation 5:  Continue to use and refine the Iowa Teaching Standards (ITS) and Iowa Standards for School Leaders (ISSL).

$25,000

1%

5

TOTAL

$8,533,000

8%

NA

*Integrity Index Score Derivation Methods are Posted on website:     http://www.iowalive.net/deriveopeff.htm  on a scale of 0 to 1,000 tops, where significant integrity starts at 300, evil is at 250 and below.  Grand larceny scores 40.

Anyone claiming to have better numbers is asked to provide them and how they were derived.

 Superior educator Dr. Sue Atkinson contributed to this post!  You can read her Op Eds in the Newton Daily News.  It is expected the Register will soon carry them as well, once it discerns the hopelessness of listening to Iowa ‘educators’, such as those named in the following list. 

Current Council on Educator Development Membership

Elaine Baughman, Special Education Teacher, Harlan Community School District, Harlan

Brad Buck, Superintendent, Cedar Rapids Community School District, Cedar Rapids

Tom Buckmiller, Professor, Drake University, Des Moines

Linda Carroll, Chief, Iowa Department of Education, Des Moines

Eriece Colbert, Teacher, Cedar Rapids Community School District, Cedar Rapids

J. D. Cryer, Field Experience Coordinator, University of Northern Iowa, Cedar Falls

Carol Farver, Retired Principal, Newton Community School District, Newton

David Fox, Principal, Waverly

Shellrock Community School District, Waverly

Roberta Hass, Teacher,

MFL Mar Mac Community School District, Monona

Roark Horn, Executive Director, School Administrators of Iowa, Clive

Joel Illian, Deputy Director, Professional Educators of Iowa, Windsor Heights

Joe Judge, Teacher, Albia Community School District, Albia

Kevin Koester, State Representative, Ankeny*

Tim Kraayenbrink, State Senator, Fort Dodge*

Michelle Lettington, Director of Elementary Schools, Des Moines Public Schools, Des Moines

Josie Lewis, Policy/Legal Services Director, Iowa Association of School Boards, Des Moines

Patty Link, Parent Representative, Des Moines

Herman Quirmbach, State Senator, Ames*

Darren Reade, Teacher, Monticello Community School District, Monticello

Derek Schulte, Teacher, Southeast Polk Community School District, Pleasant Hill

Jon She ldahl, Chief Administrator, Great Prairie Area Education Agency, Ottumwa

Bev Smith, Associate Superintendent for Human Resources and Equity, Waterloo

Billy Strickler, Elementary Teacher, Fairfield Community School District, Fairfield

Joanne Tubbs, Licensure Consultant, Iowa Board of Educational Examiners, Des Moines

Dave Versteeg, Superintendent, Montezuma Community School District, Montezuma

Tammy Wawro, President, Iowa State Education Association, Des Moines

Cindy Winckler, State Representative, Davenport*

Matt Ludwig, Iowa Department of Education, Des Moines*

*Non voting Members

 

http://www.iowalive.net/cedrecommendations.htm

Sincerely,

Iowalive     A growing network of volunteer citizens and professionals for improving Iowa