|
|
Post by rr on Oct 13, 2014 10:20:48 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris_Wendt on Oct 14, 2014 17:15:37 GMT -5
Can you explain how and why you personally favor the "Common Core" (...concept? ..."standards"? ...curriculum? ...assessments? ...-based teacher evaluations (APPR)?) when for two consecutive years ELA scores have tanked across the State, and in Wantagh, at the same time Math scores rebounded somewhat last year, after tanking in 2013? ...when use of the CC Assessment scores for teacher evaluations has been embargoed for several years? ...when the rest of the CC-adopting states (except Kentucky) will only just be releasing their first CC Assessments in 2015, and then setting the grading standards (1,2,3,4) for those assessments only after the scores are in and properly evaluated and analyzed?
I would like to hear how a "numbers person" such as yourself reacts to and embraces those particular facts at hand.
Thanks for indulging this request.
Chris Wendt
|
|
|
|
Post by rr on Oct 15, 2014 8:20:51 GMT -5
I thought I've made my points about why I favor the new standards over the past 2 years. It's probably a better conversation to have rather than write out but to summarize...I think we need accountability, the parents, the teachers, administration, and the kids. I'm not sure why I'm deemed a "numbers person" but yes, I do work with numbers and the key to numbers is knowing that they are just numbers and beneath the numbers there's a story. You cannot look always just look at numbers at their face value - they need context and you need to understand the drivers. I've used the example of Fantasy Football vs. Reality - a QB could have great fantasy numbers but their team could get crushed - what's really more important? Are good numbers more important than actually winning the game? Personally, I'd rather have bad numbers (test scores) and win the game (have the kids really LEARN concepts). The point is that numbers are just numbers, without context they don't really mean anything and they don't really add anything to the conversation.
In order for these numbers to mean anything they need to be put in context, they need to be studied over time, they need to show improvement...and I believe they will. That's why its SO important to establish a benchmark and not have people opt-out because they read a facebook meme or read some biased Newsday article written by a teacher. The reason I believe this will work is because I see whats happening with the Math and Reading everyday. I have 1st hand experience seeing the results on my kids and how the are responding to the new workload/standards.
I've seen 1st hand the need to weed out a teacher that no longer has the desire to motivate kids, is no longer able to keep up with technology. I've seen 1st hand my school tax bills and the bloated benefits we pay for these teachers that no longer belong in the system. By placing some accountability and some concrete/objective standards in place we can weed out the teachers that are not effective early on, before they are tenured and before they get the golden ticket. A good teacher deserves that golden ticket - I also know that 1st hand as my kids have also had amazing teachers, who I wish could stay with my kids for years because they have that desire to innovate, motivate and improve the way our kids learn. They don't want to teach memorization of 3+3=6, they understand the value in teaching how numbers interact and how to manipulate numbers to make math more philosophy and less memorization.
As you know I'm pretty passionate about this stuff - it's important for my kids, my tax bill, our community, our state and our nation. People say that the common core is dumb and dangerous - I think if people took a deeper look at what's being taught and stop knee-jerk reacting they might see that there's more to it. It's actually a WAY more creative process and teaches children concepts and how to think, not just memorization.
I would love to talk about this stuff more, you always have an interesting take and I can see and sometimes agree with some of your points. I don't have an agenda - I don't care about the politicians nonsense, I don't give a crap about Facebook groups and those people who feel the need to belong to a group of people complaining, I couldn't care less about protecting the unions and their leaders, teacher assessments haven't been affected at all so that complaint is basically merit less, I really only care about my kids and the money I spend to ensure they get the best education.
All that said, feel free to reach out, I believe you have my email, to grab a coffee or a drink some time and we can chat more.
|
|
greda
Junior Member
Posts: 44
|
Post by greda on Oct 15, 2014 9:15:10 GMT -5
Could not agree more. I have seen first hand how the new curriculum has challenged the students. My daughter who is on fifth grade was adjusted very well while my son has issues with English. That just goes to show how over inflated the prior scores were and how the teachers were not doing a good job in teaching our kids. I just hope as some of these older teachers who are ambivalent and just punching the clock retire, that we hire good qualified teachers and not just someone relative or a friend of a friend.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris_Wendt on Oct 17, 2014 11:39:14 GMT -5
I am left wondering if the "agreement" between Greda and RR is reciprocal? In other words, does RR agree with Greda's inferring that Wantagh's prior results were "over inflated", and, that "the teachers were not doing a good job in teaching our kids"? Does RR share Greda's assessment about "some of these older teachers who are ambivalent and just punching the clock" needing to retire? Admittedly, the 2013 and 2014 ELA Assessment scores in Wantagh may lend veracity and credibility to Greda's perspective, at least as it may pertain to teachers who have been teaching 2nd through 8th Grade ELA, as well as to their ELA Department Chair. However, my whole point in denouncing the efficacy and value of the Common Core is that Greda's perception of our teachers is all wrong.
My point about the numbers, about basing opinions on the empirical data rather than on anecdotal references, is that anecdotal information is subjective at best, and not useful in informing future curriculum or assessment changes. I think implying that the numbers are wrong and should be ignored is ignoring the fact that any metrics which adjudge college and career readiness, or which compare and rank Wantagh, New York, or American public schools and their students with other districts, states, or countries schools and their students, will be empirical data expressed in, you guessed it, numbers!
What I think we are looking at are valid numbers reflecting the results of two years of really crappy ELA Assessments, and one year of really crappy Math Assessments followed by one year of moderately crappy Math Assessments. I would also bet money that if the ELA results were ever disaggregated on the basis of the age or seniority of our teachers, then it would be "these older teachers" whose results would outshine the others.
Unfortunately, if the crapiness quotient of future ELA Assessments does not change, in a few years some of our best teachers could be fired based on crappy numbers reflecting negatively on their professional performance. Fortunately for the present, however, the law prevents those crappy ELA scores from those crappy ELA Assessments from being used against any teacher.
If the ersatz "agreement" between RR and Greda is not reciprocal, as I presume it is not, then I suggest Greda should refrain from "agreeing with" things that were never said, or, from co-opting another person's perspective to inappropriately bolster erroneous and inflammatory statements about others, namely, our teachers in this instance.
Balance.
Chris Wendt
|
|
