Live Blogging - Math in Focus Adopted
Blanford - nay
Carr - no
Martin-Morris - no
McLaren - aye
Patu - aye
Peters - absolutely
Peaslee -aye
Amendment Two passes. The district will purchase Math in Focus for K-5 elementary curriculum.
English says amendment was complete replacement for original BAR. Chair should call question on motion AS amendment. In favor is vote for sole adoption of Math in Focus.
Vote goes the same.
(There was great joy in Mudville. I did get a card from the Math in Focus vendors so I will ask about costs which yes, are still negotiable. I thought they were from enVision but was wrong but I have no idea of enVision vendors were in the room.)
The room has cleared mostly. I am pretty tired but I believe it was - to use a Board term - a "robust" discussion. At some point, I will write my analysis of this discussion. I will say that Director Blanford's performance was not good and he continues to be a very weak Board member. No matter your feelings on the subject, it is just impossible to fathom that he did NOT know there was a new amendment.
Carr - no
Martin-Morris - no
McLaren - aye
Patu - aye
Peters - absolutely
Peaslee -aye
Amendment Two passes. The district will purchase Math in Focus for K-5 elementary curriculum.
English says amendment was complete replacement for original BAR. Chair should call question on motion AS amendment. In favor is vote for sole adoption of Math in Focus.
Vote goes the same.
(There was great joy in Mudville. I did get a card from the Math in Focus vendors so I will ask about costs which yes, are still negotiable. I thought they were from enVision but was wrong but I have no idea of enVision vendors were in the room.)
The room has cleared mostly. I am pretty tired but I believe it was - to use a Board term - a "robust" discussion. At some point, I will write my analysis of this discussion. I will say that Director Blanford's performance was not good and he continues to be a very weak Board member. No matter your feelings on the subject, it is just impossible to fathom that he did NOT know there was a new amendment.
Comments
Finally, some common sense.
I am appalled.
Blanford seems like a nice guy but I worry that he just takes his marching orders from the ed reform community, which may have failed to give him direction for tonight's proceedings.
WSDWG
-StepJ
One thing that disturbs me: Why were eleven schools already using enVisions and four MIF? If programs are going to be piloted, there needs to be an even playing field once the pilot is over. It gave the enVisions program a huge advantage cost-wise.
Can anyone explain that practice to me? Piloting is fine but those pilots need to compare similar populations equally. Honestly, no wonder the bureaucrats who manipulated the MAC wanted this result.
And as for the MAC, I do blame them a little because Rick said he was in favor of MIF but apparently didn't want to be combative about it... Folks who serve on these committees need to speak up and have the courage to confront SPS staffers. You never know what motivates a staffer to manipulate a process.
That's a concern as well.
WSDWG
I am dying to see how the Times reports this. Board blows 8 million on Math? Or Board votes for premium math product? Can't wait for the morning paper.
WSDWG
WSDWG
=Thankful
Thank you to Board Members McLaren, Peters, and Patu!
And thank you again, Melissa!
-FedMomof2
If the Times wanted responsible Boardmembers willing to do the work (with zero staff support) to accomplish their fiduciary elected duties and close the biggest element of the achievement/opportunity gap - they found them in McLaren and Peters.
Director Blanford was refereeing @ his kid's school game day today - but makes you wonder whether other Boardmembers and indeed, staff, are communicating with him - or, whether he could read yesterday's posts, and other info. out there to be seen....
Shauna Heath sitting in the front row with her arms crossed glaring at the board speaks to a lack of professional demeanor. The rest of senior staff (how much money is that an hour) on the perimeter also looking glum, scurrying in and out, (including @ one point giving paper copies of slides to some Directors and noth others and not having financials until the motion was on the floor was extraordinarily embarrassing and frankly, telling.
Last, Dir. McLaren saving the "online guide for MIF ians Common Core alignment is easily accessible" for her rebuttal was a thing of beauty.
Especially proud as a West Seattlite of the powerful testimony given by several of our neighbors tonight.
Me thinks we have a wind shift and I do hope Supt. Banda and Sr. Staff smells the coffee.
Leslie
The basic issue on the MAC was, MiF was just plain old divisive in how people saw it. It was a philosophical difference, almost. Just like on the Board, it was a clearly split vote on the MAC.
Better a clear side-by-side vote from the Board, whom we elect, than the same vote from an "anonymous" MAC.
The MAC did a fine job with basic vetting. Both curricula were "good enough" and the MAC worked in GREAT detail to make sure of that. But in the end, the split decision was rightly put to the Board.
-mac member
Thanks also to Melissa and to Cliff Mass.
Would Blanford know? Given his performance to date, I'm guessing he just wasn't paying attention.
I thought it odd that Ken Gotsch did not get up to talk about these "contingency" items placed at theoretical risk. My impression to date is that he had too much integrity to do this dirty work.
-2boysclub
I must say Wendy London's appearance was incredibly uncomfortable. She had the audacity to say the district FIRST priority was fidelity to the "process"! NOT the students, NOT the learning, but the process.
Very telling was how every statement and testimony supporting MIF was applauded by the public, and that supporting the staff's position applauded by....other staff. Sad.
The committee seems to have been very divided. If the committee leaned strongly towards one text the Board would probably have followed it.
- Hal
The committee was far from divided. MiF did not meet common core (like it or not it is what our legislature chose to evaluate students and teacher on). Even Linh-Co Burke was on the committee that picked EnV, and supported the process in general many times. A dual option would have been better than this, but was deemed legally unavailable.
I spent 40 hours in tedious process driven meetings and countless hours outside of those to review curriculum. If I remember correctly 21 out of 27 had EnVision as their top choice; MiF was actually 3rd! The board should have not wasted staff and committee members time and just looked for themselves, taken testimony and decided.
"If this is the decision, why bother having people on a committee actually spend time reviewing the curriculum? We should have just asked all of you to decide."
--
I'll try to answer this. It's because the committee has one role, and the board has another. The board, and only the board, is elected. It answers to the citizenry at large. The board might, or might not, adopt any committee's recommendations. In this case, it did not. The board members who voted for MiF stated their reasons pretty clearly, and took great pains to praise and thank the committee, and to express respect for the process. Director Peaslee said, quite forthrightly, that not everyone would be pleased with the final outcome. In this instance, you were not pleased. In another set of circumstances, I would not have been. I hope this is helpful.
-- Ivan Weiss
I will be watching the tapes. Hard to believe the district did NOT have hard financial numbers for the public.
If you look at the MAC scoring of curricula, Envision and Go Math had a general consensus score from the MAC (A normal distribution for math geeks).
MiF was split. 1's and 4's (mostly) and fewer 2s-3s. A clear difference of opinion that was strongly held by the committee.
I think the Committee served its role; when a split like this occurs, it really is a political decision based on the make up of the MAC, and I think the best policy is raise it to the ultimate decisionmakers.
My one fault with the District is that they tried to minimize the appearance of dissent on the committee, but I'm glad that outed in the end so all steps were transparent.
-that statistician MAC guy
Me neither
I've heard the Board's going to review and possibly rewrite the waiver policy to make it easier and more equitable for those who want something other than Math In Focus. Funding it is still an issue, but they want to take that burden off PTAs.
Why not rely on the IMC? Because the IMC poisoned the MAC by leaning on it and steering it toward EnVision. Sorry, but that's the best way I can characterize the IMC's behavior in this process.
WSDWG
What is the IMC?
Thx,
-ML Mama
WSDWG
@n: You do blame Rick a little because he wasn't vocal enough. Did you know that he was put on the committee after the fact because he did a public disclosure request asking for the rubric which was used for committee selection? How would you have handled things differently when you are in the minority voice - 7 out of 27?
Ivan Weiss is correct. The board holds ultimate responsibility- either way.
Frankly, if EnVision was adopted and failed tens of thousands of students..the board would have been responsible. No one else.
Linh-Co and I were sitting in the back of the room noticing the MIF rep shaking and nodding his head in contradiction to statements being made by staff about negotiability of price, etc.
We wanted the directors to see this, so we tried to draw attention to him, with a handwritten sign that said "Ask the vendor!"
Juvenile, yes, and really did it make a difference to the vote? I think not, but still, it was galling to see the staff make erroneous statements right in front of the MIF sales rep.
JS
Linh-Co- Sorry about the assumption.
Ivan- as I tried to sleep I guess your point is the one that is unsettling me, true as it is. As an education professional my bias is for those people to make decisions, not politics and blogs. My naivete is that decisions the professionals make, and support with sound reason would prevail.
Entropyisme
As an education professional my bias is for those people to make decisions, not politics and blogs. My naivete is that decisions the professionals make, and support with sound reason would prevail.
--
My response to that is twofold: (1) Our system has an elected school board, thankfully not an appointed one, as the so-called "education reformers" might wish. This allows democracy, as messy as that might be, into the process. It means that all decisions will be what you call "political." Your naievete, with no disrespect intended, is to assume that politics can EVER be divorced from these decisions, under whatever system you might imagine. (2) Sound reasoning is hardly the sole property of "professionals," whoever those are, and whoever is to decide. That is the same assumption that brought us the Vietnam War, the Watergate and Enron scandals, and the subprime mortgage crisis. That is elitist, paternalistic, aristocratic thinking. That's not an attack on you personally, and it doesn't mean that "power to the people" always has a satisfactory outcome. That's just my personal experience after 70 years of participation in the public process. I hope this is helpful.
-- Ivan Weiss
As far as decisions by "professionals," many members of the public, who were summarily dismissed in some board comments, are also professionals - professionals that use math as part of their job, or teach math, or need to deal with students not having learned math - and yes, I hope their feedback is worth something.
Textbooks do matter, HMM.
-thankful parent
District staff have tried to control the decision in many ways:
1. By wildly exaggerating the costs of Math in Focus.
2. By their bias in selecting folks for the math review committee.
3. By suppressing public feedback, including limiting the venue at which the proposed books were available.
4. By ignoring strong pubic feedback for Math in Focus.
5. By stressing Common Core alignment as an argument, even though this is the latest ed fad which is inferior to current WA State math standards.
6. By ignoring powerful evidence of very positive outcomes in the district when Singapore Math was used.
The school board considered empirical facts and public feedback to arrive at the best decision for Seattle's children. The three board members that opposed MIF have been consistent in opposing good math and progressive values.
Sharon Peaslee, Sue Peters, Betty Patu, and Marty McLaren deserve our thanks as does Melissa for providing accurate information on the process.
The Seattle Times, which opposed good math and these school board members, has "surprisingly" not covered this story.
HIMSmom
Singapore math is an excellent baseline. Covers the basics in the clearest way possible. Brings every child along, as in no child will be left behind. Is it perfect? Of course not. But, it is the better baseline for all. Envision is a good program too, and some high achieving, low FRL, low ELL schools might prefer it. If they do, I hope those communities pursue a waiver. And I hope all principals will encourage teachers to teach the standards with whatever tools they see as most effective. MIF is the first layer, go-to, support, tool in that process.
The Board withstood the heat from Dr. Wright. If they need to forgo 5 SpEd hires who are necessary because of the cost of ditching Everyday Math for good textbooks, perhaps they can do layoffs within the Superintendent's cabinet, starting with Dr. Wright. That would be one way to save money.
Now, let's ditch CMP2, post-haste. This board will focus on what serves children best. Let's get them to get staff to move forward to implement the process for middle school math adoption, but with emphasized guidenced, that at the end of the day, the most important thing is that the text is the best for teaching all kids and supporting math fluency ( as opposed to supporting benchmarks).
MATH COUNTS
Ms. Peters: you rock. In so many matters, during your brief tenure, you have relentlessly focused on trying to are the issue down to the essential core of facts, which staff often fails to do, and, makes it hard for you to do. But still you persist, by being thoroughly prepared. Loved that you called out the 10 day upper range for professional development. Loved that you questioned embedding math manipulatives when we already own those. All those trifling 'details' to get to an apples-to-apples comparison, WHICH THE STAFF SHOULD HAVE DONE IN THE FIRST PLACE. The fact that they didn't is what makes them look manipulative.
Director Carr, I respect. She knew the process wasn't absolutely perfect, but was willing, in the absence of serious misconduct accusation, respect the recommendation of the MAC. Personally, I can't fault her for that.
Director Martin Morris, you need to spend more time in the classroom and with parents. You have lost touch.
Director Patu, you made me smile. Your the gal who knows what she knows because you know immigrant kids. You simply never going to go against what you know to be good for those kids. Plain and Simple. Ms. Heath, take note.
Dr. Blanford; nothing can be said. I don't see anything that will ve contributed from this person. He was petulant and showed he has nothing to learn from listening to the community. Scary that he's got 3.5 years more.
Ms. Peaslee; math was why she wanted to be on the Board. Glad she didn't forget that.
SINGAPORE SINGAPORE
Wondering
@jl: My next step is to inquire and push for a better waiver process for schools that find EnVision to be better for their students. Choice was the preferred path for the majority of the Board, but they got a surprising amount of push-back and took staff's and principals' word that it would be a massive headache to deal with.
The "push-backers" implored the Board to choose one curriculum only - certain it would be EnVision. Many figured the board would blink first and submit to the professionals. In the end, they got what they demanded.
If the push-backers weren't serious about the headaches with a dual adoption, and it was all rhetoric, then a bunch of grown-ups just learned a lesson. Too late to say "Just Kidding!"
Anti-dual-adoption arguments like the "mobility crisis" were disingenuous from the start. 100 or so kids might have challenges, out of 50,000 students? (Puh-leez! We lived through EDM.) First, we weren't buying it as a serious concern. Second, that's an anecdotal, anti-democratic and incompetent way way to set policy. Talk about "wag the dog."
As a teacher, I'll support you 100% in getting the best math for your students, and entrust that choice to your school.
I appreciate you weighing in, but I won't apologize for the advocacy, which at times seems one-sided. Good points can open and change minds, but the burden is on the proponents and, I'm sorry, but "leaving it to the professionals" is what got us here. I hope you can understand that viewpoint.
WSDWG
Not a great answer, but that how it seems. Essentially, they've lost sight of the basics and the big picture. Just my opinion.
MATH COUNTS
-MAC watcher
So pleased that this new board showed courage and did what was best for the students. They have deserved better for so many years.
S parent
@Singapore Singapore: I have to disagree with you on Sherry. She's another Sundquist: Nice person. Great friend and neighbor. But her inexplicable, consistent faith and trust in staff - no matter what - makes her a disappointing board member.
Her "all bets are off now" negotiation comments were ridiculous. And her citing of "Shoreline" for bench-marking - which the committee was supposed to do, but didn't, were 11th hour, pointless, and easily-rebutted rationalizations.
Sherry ALWAYS goes along with staff, just like Sundquist. She asks good questions and is sincere. But that's just not enough to be effective.
Aside from that, I agree with you on everything else!
WSDWG
MiF *exceeds* common core.
Common core is a testing methodology, not a teaching methodology.
We don't need to "teach to the test" - we need to teach kids to succeed in math, with whatever methodology works best, and then they will do well on the test as long as the test is fair.
If doing well on a test requires that kids be taught to take the test, and capable math students who weren't taught to take the test can't do well on it, then there is something WRONG with the test.
I would much rather have a generation of kids who learn math well, and maybe don't score as well on common core as they would have if they were taught exclusively to the test. Tests come and go, but real competence will last a lifetime and follow these kids all the way through high school and college and beyond!
I remember that it was an insult to say a teacher "taught to the test" - now it seems to be what everyone wants to do.
-Child of a public school teacher, granddaughter of a public school elementary principal who was well known and loved in his district (not SPS)
Driving to work today, I said "I would fall on the floor in shock if they passed Amendment 2."
Turns out the floor under my desk is *really* dirty.
2 boys club, we did discuss all the options here (not all seven as some got eliminated early on).
Why did staff support enVision (seemingly from the start)?
I don't know. I'm sure some of it was professional judgment but then again, was Shauna Heath speaking last night? Was the first line of explanation from staff on academics? No, it was on cost.
I do not suspect any undue relationships with vendors.
I do suspect that they were riding on the idea of Director Carr's - either curriculum would have been okay - and wanted the cheaper one.
Why? Because they need the money for all their "projects." That Mr. Wright trotted out a list of wistful wants while they hire new administrators was quite surprising. He seems smarter than that.
As Peters said:
"The Board just approved wireless package for $9 million, how do we prioritize needs? So should fund math."
Priorities.
Honestly I think either textbook choice would have been a vast step forward over Everyday Math. Perhaps that is setting the bar too low.
But elementary parents, I must warn you, the middle school math textbooks (CMP, i.e. Connected Math) are VASTLY worse than EDM.
So don't relax, folks. Savor this victory for a day and then carry the fight forward with haste.
You sound like a committed & caring teacher/constituent willing to engage in thoughtful debate. I appreciate that, and hope that my comment won't come off as "snarky". But you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the way a free (self-governing) society is supposed to work. In a free society, the "experts" are rarely supposed to make the decisions. Their role is to act as impartial advisors to those with the most at stake. The ones with the most at stake (in this case, the SPS voters through their elected reps) then make the decisions. This is not only right, but practical, as the ones with the most at stake will have the greatest incentive to change course when the occasional, inevitable mistakes occur. Think about this in your personal life. When you go to a doctor, dentist, auto mechanic, investment advisor, or whatever, do they make the decisions for you? No. They act as impartial advisors to you, and then because you have the most at stake, you decide.
There was a little bit of "smartest people in the room" going on in the MAC, but not much. But I see some of that here in this thread!
The real "voices of the technocrats" that I heard in that MAC room were the voices of front-line teacher experience: Go for an incremental change that's most directly aligned with the big Tests next year, or for Yet Another Trend Pushed by Idealists, rushed, with inadequate training, and antagonism with the District (who can scuttle it in many ways).
That's just plain old fashioned hard-earned realism, not paternalism. Especially when the questions are raised by the Board on MiF are about cutting costs: I'd be paranoid as a teacher that I wouldn't be trained properly at all for this, or have critical supporting materials, etc.
My main takeaway from all this is: good people can come to a great decision in a room, but when the district gets ahold of that decision and crafts it into a policy, that's a black box that Bad Things come out of.
It's right to be victorious for what y'all worked hard on, but if you want to support the teachers, you'll keep the fire on the District that the implementation actually works.
-Stat MAC guy
We certainly can agree on the need to ensure effective implementation.
-- Ivan Weiss
But, you are absolutely correct that the majority of contributors to this blog "do not want dissent" from the prevailing point of view. Dissent is simply not welcome here. To be fair, Melissa et al will NEVER censor your comments or delete them (if you follow the rules), but dissent is not the order of the day. The purpose of this blog, I've concluded, is to provide a forum for like-minded people to share information, vent, and commiserate and, most importantly, provide a counterpoint to the media of the education reform community (e.g., LEV, Partnership for Learning, Stand for Childen, et al). They generally don't want any thoughts or opinions shared here that doesn't align with their own thoughts and opinions.
How do I know this? I regularly share my unwelcome thoughts and opinions. For this, I've been told to simply go away, to get my own blog, told I was going to be ignored, etc. For those readers (and sometimes contributors) who come here to get a full picture, they will soon be SOL. But, as has been suggested to me multiple times, those people can read LEV's blog if they want information that differs from what is espoused here.
--- swk
That's the nature of the Internet. Like-minded people congregate for information and, yes, for reinforcement. Big whoop! I go on LEV's blog from time to time and dispute what most of them say and think. I don't give a rip if they want me to comment or not; Until they ban me, I comment as I see fit. I don't care if they want dissent or not. Try growing a thicker skin and quit crying victim. I welcome your comments even though I usually disagree with them, because at least they are informed from experience.
-- Ivan Weiss
The biggest thanks go of course to the directors. I know Directors Peters and McClaren put in many many long hours digging up information and preparing their amendments, with little help from staff.
Big thanks go also to the folks who have been soldiers in the Seattle math war for years now (I am a newcomer)
THANK YOU Rick, Linh-Co, Sue, Marty, Sharon, Ted Nutting, Kate Martin, Dan Dempsey, Cliff Mass, J. Smith, and so many others.
JS
Mom of 4
Even if we have to change them one school at a time, fine, but seriously, this next, along with middle school math adoption.
-MATH COUNTS
It will certainly be a challenge to get intermediate (3-5th grade) Everyday Math students to transition to Math in Focus. Highline did a roll up for the initial adoption starting in the lower grades. Teachers will have to pull out earlier 3rd grade lessons introducing bar modeling, working with drawing accurate proportions, and teaching proper notations for diagramming before the students can be successful in multi-steps problem solving. Craig Parsley and other teachers from Schmitz Park and Boren STEM can do this. I would be happy to provide free inservices to teachers to teach them how to use bar modeling. Central staff probably will not be interested.
I hope he would consider this.
JS
Just think how much we can save on PD if the district accepts such offers?
JS
I should be grateful you didn't tell me to put down the crack pipe. ;-)
--- swk
I also want to say that while this blog has point of view, ALL opinions have been welcomed, listened to and discussed. Melissa has many times warned people to keep it civil and for the most part that has hapened. I think people need to remember that disagreement is not personal. Heck, I have no idea who anyone I have debated over the years is since most people don't sign their name. One reason I have alwyas signed my name is because I am a teacher and you may one day be sending me the most precious thing you have in the world to me, your children, and I want you to know what I am and what I stand for. If you don't think I should be teaching your child because of the way I do things, the way I teach and the materials I use, that's fine. You need to decide what is best of your child.
We are just finishing up a great year at Ingraham, we have a huge freshman class coming in, and next year will be even greater. With yesterdays' vote, I think the SPS is starting down a path where what is best for the kids is becoming the priority, not what is best for the consultants and the corporate education reformers.
-teacher
HIMSmom
I rather appreciate the fact that you come here and offer a different perspective. On a larger scale, can we talk about the voice of dissent (ours) in relation to Gate's highly funded media blitz?
It's about ideas and educating using knowledge, experience and facts, as much as possible.
This blog functions as an unofficial ombudsman's office where complaints frequently originate and build into momentum.
Articulate, meaningful viewpoints can open and change minds, and I rarely read the nastiness we see at places like the Times comment section.
If you're in the minority, it's lonely. I'm there from time to time, just mention "guns" as an option to protect students, and you'll be trounced by numbers, but also engaged by those attempting to persuade.
Maligning this blog and saying it accepts no dissent is simply not true. Do not confuse popularity with control or censorship, as so many do when their personal view isn't widely shared.
WSDWG
My last comment: I appreciate your information and you've even taught me a couple of things. That said, we'll never agree on certain issues.
I value all, and need to add...the manner in which you sulk is sort of cute....;) I'm not being snarky, either. You say you won't be back, but you just can't help yourself. Have a good day (no snark)
That Board just rubber stamped staff's wish.
-districtWatcher
"Years ago, in my earliest and pastiest days as a would-be writer, I once read a new story aloud to S. and Boo Boo. When I was finished, Boo Boo said flatly (but looking over at Seymour) that the story was 'too clever.' S. shook his head, beaming away at me, and said cleverness was my permanent affliction, my wooden leg, and that it was in the worst possible taste to draw the group’s attention to it."
--- swk
What do we need to do to convince you to keep weighing in?
Jan
I didn't realize the vote was so skewed. Truthfully, with a one-sided decision like that, I'm not sure the Board did do the right thing. I wasn't there and apparently the seven could not sway the twenty-one.
I was in favor of MIF but now my question changes: what did the twenty-one consider that the seven did not?
Three of my teacher friends and one retired principal who went down to check out the choices personally all picked enVision. They felt there was more thinking and problem solving in that program which is good for English speakers with good math exposure. But for ELL and poor readers, it gets in the way of the math. Perhaps a dual option would have been the best appraoch: the program that meets the needs of the diverse populations served in Seattle Schools.
I appreciated that Rick posted. I am somewhat chagrined at my ignorance about the process.
My earlier question still stands: Why give enVision such a head start by putting it into so many schools? If you compare Shoreline with Highline, you can see vast differences. Each district apparently chose the program that matches their needs.
Doesn't that sound logical?
There were 9 people on the MAC that rated No Recommendation higher than Math in Focus. Meaning these teachers would rather stay with EDM. I don't necessarily think this a reflection on MiF. Rather it's more telling that the make-up of the MAC were teachers with a disposition for constructivism and reform math.
You wonder why teachers you know seem to support enVision? Me, too - the SPS staff especially. I can't get past my initial conclusion after reviewing the vendor-provided materials: the reason is, enVision SPOON-FEEDS Common Core. The CC item drives the text - 1:1 correspondence, lesson by lesson. I don't think there is air between them (well done, internal Pearson-ites - I'm sure those were your marching orders, but really...over the top.) Spoon-feeds to a testing methodology, with who knows what kind of performance when used as a teaching methodology (kind of reminds me of the 'wolf in sheep's clothing" story.) It struck as a brazen "teaching to the test" and sadly small and cynical, overtly screaming recognition that test results will be tied back to TEACHER evaluation - in contrast to the Math In Focus materials, which are so clear and plainly focused on teaching STUDENTS math...all students. So there it is, my small, profoundly disappointing ah ha.
I'd love to know swk's feelings about Seattle's Universal Preschool proposal and this:
http://www.dfer.org/prek/dfer-prek-briefing.pdf
Listening to the webinar and viewing the powerpoint slides is downright eery, when you think about the level of "control" CCSS will have over a generation of students in public schools if it comes to fruition as they want it to. As far as standards go, it is plainly and un-apologetically one-size-fits-all for the whole country.
While many who support common core were well intended, I found my thoughts floating back and forth between local control push-back in many states and regions, on the one hand, and Chairman Mao's Re-Education programs on the other. Hyperbole yes, but all sorts of thoughts go through one's head, such as Carl in Caddyshack:
I have to laugh, because I've outsmarted even myself. My enemy, my foe, is an animal. In order to conquer the animal, I have to learn to think like an animal. And, whenever possible, to look like one. I've gotta get inside this guy's pelt and crawl around for a few days.
Are we becoming the enemy or rival in order to defeat him? What is all this controlling of the flow of information CCSS exerts over our kids minds? It completely contravenes so much of our history of public education in this country, it just left my head spinning to listen to comments and see how quickly state education people listening to the webinar fell into line and agreed with the SAP rep, whom I believe was Sandra Alberti. Bizarre, almost creepy.
I would imagine any MS or HS history teacher would be speechless at what's going on, given those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it. But we apparently have many teachers planning to teach to CCSS as much as possible, because that's what students will be "graded on" and maybe someday what teachers will be "rated on" as well.
The same standards from sea to shining sea? Welcome to the United States of Widgetry & Data. I think we've already reached the point where we've standardized our curricula to death, but CCSS is causing people to double-down on it.
From a policy standpoint, to meet each kid where they are and help them grow and develop into competent adults, I find this "programming" of kids terrifying and depressing.
WSDWG
#sincere
www.mocsbar.com
www.triciajoy.com
To succeed we must BELIEVE that we CAN.
It's a great pleasure to read your blog. Keep on sharing some kind of knowledge. Have a good day :)
imarksweb.net