Www.house.ga.gov



PREPARED COMMENTSBy Sam LetsonFor the Meeting of theHOUSE STUDY COMMITTEE ON THE ROLE OFFEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN EDUCATIONTuesday, October 21, 2014First, I express thanks to the Committee for the opportunity to present some questions about the announced subject and some ideas that I have on the subject of this Meeting: THE ROLE OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN EDUCATION.The first question is, WHAT WERE THE REASONS WHY GEORGIA ABANDONED ITS OWN AGENDA FOR EDUCATIONAL ADVANCEMENT IN FAVOR OF THE EXTERNALLY GENERATED STANDARDS REFERRED TO AS COMMON CORE STANDARDS? As background for this question, I present the following information:The first public formal meeting on the Common Core Standards that I attended was on November 12, 2013. It featured a speaker and a four person panel. It was sponsored byGEORGIA PARTNERSHIP FOR EXCELLENCE IN EDUCATION and was held at the Georgia Pacific Building at Five Points in Atlanta. Under the general theme of “CRITICAL ISSUES FORUM”, this particular Forum was entitled, “DOES COMMON CORE MAKE COMMON SENSE...OR NOT?” It was advertised as a “Balanced Discussion.” However, as it turned out all four panel members were in favor of Common Core. The only balance came from questions and comments from members of the audience during the time on the Agenda that was allotted for questions and comments.At the time of the Meeting, I had heard about Common Core and had attempted to look at the pros and cons. Of course I was disappointed that the announced “Balanced Approach” turned out to be altogether one sided. Is the word “DECEPTIVE” too inflamatory in regards to the reality of the content of the Meeting as over against its publicly announced “Balanced Approach”? Let's let it stand. But such an experience does put one on guard for future assertions about the public intentions.Add to that initial experience the fact that answers to the initial question have not been forthcoming, then the inclinations toward suspicion is heightened.One other factor in regard to the above question: At the Meeting referenced above a pamphlet was available. It is entitled, NINTH EDITION: TOP TEN ISSUES TO WATCH IN 2013. The TOP TEN ISSUES refers to issues in Georgia education.In the Introduction it is pointed out that since the annual TOP TEN ISSUES TO WATCH has become such an important document in assessing education in Georgia, that in this Ninth Edition, “it is fitting to consider the educational progress Georgia has made since our first issue was published in 2005.”The signature at the end of the Introduction is that of Dr. Stephen D. Dolinger, President, Georgia Partnership for Excellence in Education. In the Introduction, four particular reform measures are listed which have resulted in leading Georgia “to be ranked seventh in the nation in a national study conducted in 2012 for having the right policies in place to improve educational outcomes.” “Have these policies translated into increased outcomes for students?” Dr. Dolinger answers that in 2012 “Georgia was the only State in the nation to show gains across all national tests:” (SAT, ACT, NAEP) in Math, Reading and Science. He also points out Georgia's poor graduation rate as an issue which must be attacked.He states that Georgia's advancements are “expected to prepare students for the demands of college or a career and increase the global competitiveness of Georgia's workforce.”The initial Question is, WHY CHANGE NOW, WHEN GEORGIA SEEMS MOVING SIGNIFICANTLY IN THE DESIRED DIRECTION? An analogy may be helpful” The Braves have hired a manager who after a couple of years led them to the Playoffs. The most recent year, they went deeper into the Playoffs. Do you at this point fire the manager and bring in a new one?Are the assessments in the Introduction to the NINTH EDITION: TOP TEN ISSUES TO WATCH IN 2013 correct? Was Georgia education moving IMPRESSIVELY in the right direction? Did it have in place the kinds of reforms that justified its positive evaluation by national educational groups? If so: DOES ADOPTING COMMON CORE MAKE COMMON SENSE? Thus far I have not been able to get a non-evasive answer to that question.What is the tendency when you cannot get a clear, unambiguous answer to what appears to be a rather simple question? Is it not the case if you are both sincerely interested and curious that you begin to look around for footprints to follow? For obtuseness to recalibrate? For dodges to interpret? For defensive emotional outbursts to examine that cause a lot of smoke but little if any light?FINALLY YOU ASK THE QUESTION: DOES GEORGIA'S CHANGE TO COMMON CORE MAKE....CENTS?People of my acquaintance and I have yet to receive a clear, unambiguous. “transparent” (That seems to be a popular promissory note issued frequently today by politicians.) answer to the initial question.Here is another related point about the insertion of COMMON CORE STANDARDS into Georgia Education. The New Yorker magazine in the last few weeks had an article about the clumsy introduction of COMMON CORE into American education. Drawing upon the experience of Japan, which is one of the educational systems to which America's implementation of COMMON CORE was to be “internationally benchmarked”, before that term suddenly disappeared, the writer chastises American educators for attempting to adopt principles of educational reform in a fortnight which has taken Japan twenty years, and on which they are continuing to work. It's the implementation, the absence of time to vet the Standards at local levels, against which the author rails.I have heard the same criticism from local classroom teachers who are overwhelmed by standards that they either disagree with or do not fully comprehend, or both. One Georgia educator has said that classroom teachers are “overwhelmed” both by confusing expectations and by an endless amount of paper work.Let me say that I look forward to hearing a public announcement that asserts: Georgia's Educators in concert with State Legislatures have suspended COMMON CORE STANDARDS AND CURRICULUM UNTIL SUCH TIME AS LOCAL CLASSROOM TEACHERS, PARENTS AND ADMINISTRATORS HAVE HAD PROPER TIME TO VET THESE STANDARDS. IN THE MEANTIME, GEORGIA EDUCATORS WILL CONTINUE TO PRESS FORWARD WITH THE ROAD TO REFORM ON WHICH GEORGIA WAS SUCCESSFULLY EMBARKED PRIOR TO THE INTRODUCTION OF BEWILDERING, UNTESTED COMMON CORE STANDARDS AND COPY RIGHTED CURRICULUM REQUIREMENTS. I also look forward to future meetings with Legislatures to deal with the following subjects;THE ROLE OF GEORGIA'S TAX PAYING PARENTS IN THE EDUCATION OF THEIR CHILDREN.THE ROLE OF THE “BOOTS ON THE GROUND” CLASSROOM TEACHER IN THE EDUCATION OF THEIR STUDENTS. (INCLUDING THE ROLE OF LOCAL SUPERINTENDENTS, PRINCIPALS AND ADMINISTRATORS)THE ROLE OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT IN THE EDUCATION OF GEORGIA'S STUDENTS.And most importantly of all: WHAT IS THE PLACE OF THE CHILD WITHIN THE ROLES OF ALL PRINCIPAL PERSONS AND PARTIES IN THEIR EDUCATION.It could possibly be the case that as soon as the above questions are addressed satisfactorily, we just might conclude that the role of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, including the funding of individual trust funds, the companies of the Principals of which, stand to benefit financially from the adoption of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CONTROL... the the ROLE OF THE FED IN LOCAL EDUCATION is probably unnecessary, likely a distraction and a hindrance, and perhaps even detrimental to the educational advancement of the classroom student.Thank for your time and I will applaud the throwing off of the shackles that bind you.Sincerely Sam Letson ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download