It's extremely disappointing to write that the appeals court has overturned Judge Spector's decision. For a little while, her decision had opened the curtain and acknowledged the reality-- constructivist math is a sham, unsupported by statistically valid data, unsupported by the vast majority of highly technically proficient community members, scientists, educators, and mathematicians. Students continue to flounder and be hamstrung by lack of substantive math education, and by the confusion that ensues from constructivist teaching practices.
Here is a link to the decision.
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/index.cfm?fa=opinions.showOpinion&filename=650360MAJ
I don't have time to write a detailed review of the decision at the moment; my quick perusal gives me the impression that it is an uncritical repeat of the School District's recent brief, with little evidence that the judges closely examined the case we presented.
More later,
Marty
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
three teacher from SE high Schools testified that these books were NOT what their students needed. Rainier Beach HS: Madison & Rice, Franklin HS: Murphy ... NOT enough Practice .. Not much explicit instruction ... few examples.
ReplyDeleteThe results of Spring 2010 OSPI math testing revealed exactly what these teachers and Porter et al. contended.
To say the
"current legal system" is nearly useless when it comes to education is a complete understatement.
Bullets to explain: Why I and many view the current system as increasingly corrupt.
ReplyDeleteSection I: from former Supreme Court Chief Justice Phil Talmadge
• Washington courts have not assessed whether its existing paradigm adequately implements legislative intent, the theoretical touchstone for the courts.
• The courts' application of the paradigm is inconsistent and episodic.
• It is difficult to determine what rules actually apply at what time.
• The term "shall" usually creates an imperative obligation unless unconstitutional or contrary to legislative intent.
Section II: “Shall” was NOT ruled as imperative, in the following.
• RCW 28A 655.071: (2) By January 1, 2011, the superintendent of public instruction shall submit to the education committees of the house of representatives and the senate:
(a) A detailed comparison of the provisionally adopted standards and the state essential academic learning requirements as of June 10, 2010, including the comparative level of rigor and specificity of the standards and the implications of any identified differences; and
(b) An estimated timeline and costs to the state and to school districts to implement the provisionally adopted standards, including providing necessary training, realignment of curriculum, adjustment of state assessments, and other actions.
• RCW 28A 645.020: Within twenty days of service of the notice of appeal, the school board, at its expense, or the school official, at such official's expense, shall file the complete transcript of the evidence and the papers and exhibits relating to the decision for which a complaint has been filed.
• Such filings shall be certified to be correct.
Section III: RCW 29A 56.110 on Recall of an elected official.
…. prepare a typewritten charge, reciting that such officer, …. has committed an act or acts of malfeasance, or an act or acts of misfeasance while in office, …. The charge shall state the act or acts complained of in concise language, give a detailed description including the approximate date, location, and nature of each act complained of, be signed by the person or persons making the charge, …
• The courts have decided that the petitioner for recall must show it was the intent of the official to violate the law. Nothing in the legislation indicates intent. Without “Psychic Readers”, how can intent be shown?
• The courts have made it virtually impossible for any public petitioner to successfully satisfy a “Recall Sufficiency Hearing” as courts currently fail to assess original legislative intent.