I have to compliment Sonja Santelises on an excellent performance. She is obviously very intelligent and committed to her project. She brings a warm personal voice to the discussion about Common Core Standards (CCS) without being wonky and conveys a sense that she understands her topic in a profound way. Unfortunately, she confirmed all of my suspicions that her presentation would be a slick sales job.
She began by declaring that she was not going to address the "political" aspects of the issue, even in light of the "tsunami of opposition" because that would be distracting. Though I didn't like her dismissiveness of other voices, I could see her point. There were time constraints. She then followed with two personal anecdotes about her father and her husband, both African American males who persevered and got college educations. Her expressions of love and pride for these two men who beat the odds were heartwarming. Of course, they did this before there was a CCS so what was her point? The point is that they were held to high standards by someone in the schools they attended. Done, again, before the CCS.
In Act II she began showing data from her PowerPoint. Here's where the academic sounding mumbo jumbo started flowing. She showed NAEP test questions and Smarter Balance questions, analysed them authoritatively, and boy are we behind. What occurred to me in this part of her presentation was how much it was like an insurance sales pitch. Build up some anxiety that we can then relieve. Actually, the entirety of Madison Avenue tries to do this, create the sense of need which can then be satisfied with product X. In this case the CCS and the ideology behind it was being promoted. She repeatedly said that there was no curriculum, that we were on our own to find the winning combination that would properly implement CCS. She also said that the only way we will know that we are succeeding is by testing and tests are very definitely a product that is for sale. Her presentation assumes that money is already spent.
A good portion (the best portion for me) was when she spoke about how crucial having high standards and expectations are for low income kids. There was very little to disagree with as she spoke authentically about her personal project of educating poor children. Though it was clear that she believes that holding the kids to high standards is crucial, I never felt that those standards had to be CCS. It seems as if any standards would work as long as they were used to teach goal setting and perseverance. And that teachers believed their students could achieve. This point is much more pertinent than any points she made about CCS.
There was a brief Q&A in which she fielded a question about gym and art. Of course, these are important but we don't test them. She expressed genuine concern that these are necessary parts of education but made no commitment. And that was the end of the show.
So her pitch was to convince us to embrace the CCS for the sake of equity and it was masterful on several levels even if the basic logic was flawed. I'm still not buying it. There is no connection between CCS and student achievement and the claim that there is no curriculum to buy is disingenuous. The tests are bought, there is certainty of failure, and curriculum salesmen are ready to support us. By denying politics at the beginning of her talk Santelises was also denying economics and denying economics guarantees a partial picture.
We will continue trying to fill in the rest.
She began by declaring that she was not going to address the "political" aspects of the issue, even in light of the "tsunami of opposition" because that would be distracting. Though I didn't like her dismissiveness of other voices, I could see her point. There were time constraints. She then followed with two personal anecdotes about her father and her husband, both African American males who persevered and got college educations. Her expressions of love and pride for these two men who beat the odds were heartwarming. Of course, they did this before there was a CCS so what was her point? The point is that they were held to high standards by someone in the schools they attended. Done, again, before the CCS.
In Act II she began showing data from her PowerPoint. Here's where the academic sounding mumbo jumbo started flowing. She showed NAEP test questions and Smarter Balance questions, analysed them authoritatively, and boy are we behind. What occurred to me in this part of her presentation was how much it was like an insurance sales pitch. Build up some anxiety that we can then relieve. Actually, the entirety of Madison Avenue tries to do this, create the sense of need which can then be satisfied with product X. In this case the CCS and the ideology behind it was being promoted. She repeatedly said that there was no curriculum, that we were on our own to find the winning combination that would properly implement CCS. She also said that the only way we will know that we are succeeding is by testing and tests are very definitely a product that is for sale. Her presentation assumes that money is already spent.
A good portion (the best portion for me) was when she spoke about how crucial having high standards and expectations are for low income kids. There was very little to disagree with as she spoke authentically about her personal project of educating poor children. Though it was clear that she believes that holding the kids to high standards is crucial, I never felt that those standards had to be CCS. It seems as if any standards would work as long as they were used to teach goal setting and perseverance. And that teachers believed their students could achieve. This point is much more pertinent than any points she made about CCS.
There was a brief Q&A in which she fielded a question about gym and art. Of course, these are important but we don't test them. She expressed genuine concern that these are necessary parts of education but made no commitment. And that was the end of the show.
So her pitch was to convince us to embrace the CCS for the sake of equity and it was masterful on several levels even if the basic logic was flawed. I'm still not buying it. There is no connection between CCS and student achievement and the claim that there is no curriculum to buy is disingenuous. The tests are bought, there is certainty of failure, and curriculum salesmen are ready to support us. By denying politics at the beginning of her talk Santelises was also denying economics and denying economics guarantees a partial picture.
We will continue trying to fill in the rest.
No comments:
Post a Comment