Are you superstitious on Friday the 13th?

Here are some possible reasons Friday the 13th started. Mind you, it is just speculation that I was able to find on the internet, it is not fact. Do you believe bad things happen on Friday the 13th? Let me know!

History of a superstition

First and foremost, the Last Supper’s 13th guest (and last apostle), Judas, supposedly betrayed Jesus. Then, His Crucifixion occurred on a Friday. Some scholars also believe Eve tempted Adam on a Friday.

Also, Babylon’s ancient Code of Hammurabi skips number 13 when listing laws. Egyptians considered the afterlife the 13th phase of life.

But the number thirteen’s cursed beginnings fall outside the rise of Christianity, too. A similar story occurs in Norse mythology. The 11 closest friends of Odin, the father of all gods, chose to dine together when Loki, the god of evil and chaos, crashed the party. One of the gods, Balder, the god of joy and happiness, died that evening.

Much later, King Philip IV of France certainly didn’t help by ordering the persecution of the Knights Templar on Friday, October 13, 1307. In the following years, several thousand faced torture and execution.

If those tales don’t convince you, math also has a stake in why people get bad vibes from the number thirteen. First, 12 appears a lot in our culture — 12 months in a year, 12 hours on a clock, 12 signs of the zodiac, 12 apostles of Jesus. We love 12.

12 is a “pseudoperfect” number, according to Wolfram. The sum of some of its divisors equals the whole number. For example, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 go into 12. Both 2+4+6 and 1+2+3+6 equal 12.

On December 12, 2012, a boy in Alabama turned 12 at 12:12 p.m. People started calling him everything from “the chosen one” to a sign of the impending apocalypse.

Thirteen has a tough act to follow.

Regardless of where, when, or how this superstition started, we’ve perpetuated our own fear. “If nobody bothered to teach us about these negative taboo superstitions like Friday the 13th, we might in fact all be better off,” Stuart Vyse, psychology professor at Connecticut College in New London, told National Geographic.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/history-of-friday-the-13th-2013-9#ixzz2en801hRW

Accountability

Rachel Wise, District 3, Nebraska State Board of Education (September, 2013)

Accountability 101

Last month I described some of the information that will be found in the Nebraska State of the Schools Report when it is released September 27^th. This month I want to use my pen (well, actually it would be the keyboard) to write about accountability from a broader perspective. Nebraska schools and school districts are first and foremost accountable to their local communities, school boards, taxpayers, parents and, most importantly, students. However, they are also accountable to the state and federal government.

In 2001 the accountability stakes were raised at the federal level. No Child Left Behind (NCLB) spelled out accountability requirements that local school districts and states needed to report in reading, math and graduation rates. These reporting requirements are labeled Adequate Yearly Progress or AYP. Jumping ahead to 2014, the federal expectations are that all students in grades 3-8 and one grade in high school will demonstrate 100 percent student proficiency in reading and math, as measured by state tests. Title I schools (schools receiving federal funds) that do not meet the federal performance benchmarks are identified as schools needing improvement and certain expectations are placed on these schools. If Title I schools needing improvement do not meet benchmarks for two consecutive years, then specific “corrective action” is required in those schools. So, why is all of this important? We are now into the 2013/2014 school year and there is a federal expectation that 100% percent of Nebraska students will be proficient in reading and math. This is certainly an admirable goal, but is it realistic? In my opinion, NO! These are the federal rules that our schools must follow until Congress reauthorizes the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (already 7seven years past due for reauthorization) or Nebraska is given some flexibility relative to the federal reporting requirements.

So, what about accountability at the state level? The Nebraska State Board of Education has been working with the Nebraska Legislature since 2011 to establish a Nebraska accountability system. In 2012, the Legislature enacted LB 870 requiring the State Board to establish multiple measures including graduation rates along with student growth and improvement scores on state tests. The Nebraska Performance Accountability System (NePAS) was established by the Board in August 2012, and like federal AYP is based on results from state tests and graduation rates.  Some differences between NePAS and AYP include: AYP assigns designations to every school building, according to the grade levels housed in the building, and to every district; NePAS gives rankings based on grade-level configurations–Grades 3-5, Grades 6-8, and Grades 9-12 — and overall district rankings based on Grades 3-12; AYP includes the performance of subgroups in its designations; NePAS does not include subgroup performance. Does this sound a little confusing? It is! In my opinion it is confusing to schools, parents and communities trying to understand how their schools and students are performing.

Over the next few months, the State Board of Education, in partnership with the Nebraska Legislature and key stakeholders statewide, will continue to develop a vision for one integrated accountability system that focuses on individual student growth and school improvement in reading, math, science and graduation rates that meets the needs of Nebraska and federal reporting.

Last month I provided an update on the alignment study conducted by McREL on the Nebraska language arts standards. This month the report on mathematics was finalized and released. Several discrepancies in standards, rigor and sequencing were found between the Nebraska mathematics standards and the Common Core. One key difference is in the sequencing which determines when topics or concepts are taught. For example, the Common Core identifies adding fractions as a standard for 3^rd grade. The Nebraska mathematics standards introduces adding fractions as a concept in the 4^th grade. The results of the study between the Nebraska math standards and the Common Core will be one of the pieces of information used over the next several months by Nebraska post-secondary educators, K-12 teachers, administrators, and the public, as they review the current Nebraska mathematics standards and consider possible revisions to ensure that Nebraska standards prepare students to be college and career ready. For more information please search the Nebraska Department of Education website at www.education.ne.gov .

Rachel Wise