If you haven't guessed, I will be testifying in favor of the CCSS.
The beginning of the hearing will be invited guests. The state has asked specific individuals both in support and against to speak. They will get the most time to talk. After that is done (probably several hours) the floor will be open to those who registered to speak today.
Pass this along to those who might be interested. The hearing starts in about 40 minutes. First update will more than likely not be for another hour at least.
First Speaker:
- Rick Essenberg - Representing Law and Liberty dedicating providing legal support for education reform. They are testifying against Tony Evers statement that he can direct the state to use the CCSS regardless of the legislatures vote.
- My take: Tony Evers support of the CCSS is clearly noted but he cannot dictate that the CCSS are used throughout the district.
- Basically, the superintendent has no authority to make policy decision in regards to the CCSS. That is a policy decision. Furthermore, any power the superintendent does have can be revoked at any time.
- He was grilled regarding the rigor of the standards. Effectively, I don't believe he has read the standards and clearly doesn't teach children. He wants the standards to "teach" kids. That is the not the meaning of a standard.
Second Speaker:
- Michael Trill - speaking in support of the standards
- Discussed some of the fallacies in regards to ELA and math. He did a pretty decent job. Then nailed it on the cost of not-implementing the standards. "Why stop the momentum.
- My take: great data on the costs - I believe him to be accurate. However, gets grilled because he is a national speaker going all over to dispel the myths of the CCSS.
- Great summary of Michael Trill's speaking. It seems the panel understood his purpose.
- It really annoys me when representatives just pick at where the guys money came from who is speaking. I get why but it seems they ignore their message just to try to make the speaker look bad - It is just good that the Rep typically takes pie in the face after it is all done.
- "These standards are more challenging than what most states had before. However, that is typically not rigorous enough to go into a STEM field. What is the goal? Is it to prepare a student to do what they need to do or get all students into a STEM field."
- Our goal isn't to get all students into a STEM field! It is to give them the tools so all students can succeed in whatever they choose to do.
Third Speaker:
- Ted Rebarber: Accountabiilty Works - Speaking against
- "The reason WI test results are so strong is due to its quality of teaching"
- Lots of mythical errors with this individual.
- His examples are specific to one teachers poor instruction. He also takes a look only at the standards with no respect to the practices.
- Mr. Rebarber is trying to discredit the non-standard algorithms. He only supports the standard algorithm.
- My take:
- Mr. Rebarber is attacking only math - not ELA. He hasn't mentioned any of the Math Practices or the rationale for teaching specific things at certain times. He is choosing one item from different, not correlated grade levels. Of course things seem disjointed then. Mr. Rebarber, it turns out runs an online testing business. Could he have an alternate agenda since writing assessments for these standards is harder than writing a "traditional" assessment.
- Mr. Rebarber is a money guy. He is solely looking at this from a financial aspect on "expected" expenditures.
- Unbelievably Mr. Rebarber is still up! However, just got called on the carpet for being here for a private business use. He is toast. His entire testimony (which was invited by the co-chairs) has been proven to be useless.
Fourth Speaker:
- Bill McCallum: Writer of the CCSS - Speaking in Favor
- The standards focus on fewer topics at greater depth. Basically, McCallum hit the history and the purpose of the standards. Teachers know the standards will not be easy but are the right thing for students.
- Really good dialogue. Lots of STEM questions which concerns me. Why?
- My take:
- It is really interesting that there were very few questions for Bill. It didn't make any sense. He is the sole math writer and almost nothing. I believe it is because they were made in sound principles. You can't refute how the standards were made.
Fifth Speaker: (Final invited speaker!)
- Didn't catch his name. Speaking against - specifically math.
- Speaking against "how" Geometry is being taught. Wants to go back to traditional Euclidean Geometry
- I believe he is saying its "too rigorous" in K-1 then it slows down too much in 3rd - 5th. The number of inaccuracies is hilarious! What he is saying is exactly opposite of what is actually reality. K-2 teachers say its too slow (depth) and 3-6 teachers say its too fast.
- He is blaming the discrepancy between the minority success and white success on the CCSS when in fact this has been this way forever.
- My take:
- This guy is just wrong - not much else needs to be said. I can't explain it any more clearly than that.
My summary of the invited speakers...Only one was here that had background that was accurate with the common core and not here for a private financial reason. This includes Michael Trill who spoke in favor. Bill McCallum talked about the standards as they are. Not money, but minimum expectations for student success.
We keep hearing that Calculus and STEM Math needs to be part of the CCSS. These are STANDARDS!!! A standard is something that is for everyone. If a student wants to be in a STEM Career then we have courses that will help them be on track for that.
Guest Speakers:
1. For - answering questions from previous hearings.
2. Against - business person - Just finding out about the core. Correlates it to a new
medical procedure that hasn't been tested...what???
3. Against - a nut - a true wack job. Shouting into the microphone. Wants us to do
online only instruction. All DOK 1. Why do more??? What a nut!
4. For - Super for Sturgeon Bay.
5. Against - hard to tell though. He plays both ends quite a bit.
6. Against - special interest - I like to ignore them.
7. For - higher education - loves the consistent nature of the CCSS. Will help to close the gap.
8. For - superintendent of Pulaski.
9. Against - parent - claiming its too rigorous. It is just crazy the polar opposites in the negative crowd. She doesn't expect a Kindergartener to count by 5's...or by 1's. Why can't they just play???
10. For - "Best and most intense initiative that has hit education."
11. - Against -
12 - ++++ Ok, I just give up. Too much.
No comments:
Post a Comment