{"id":953,"date":"2014-09-26T23:31:27","date_gmt":"2014-09-27T03:31:27","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/stopcommoncorenh.org\/sccnh\/?p=953"},"modified":"2014-09-26T23:31:27","modified_gmt":"2014-09-27T03:31:27","slug":"maine-an-up-close-and-personal-encounter-with-the-standards-review-process","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/stopcommoncorenh.org\/sccnh\/2014\/09\/26\/maine-an-up-close-and-personal-encounter-with-the-standards-review-process\/","title":{"rendered":"MAINE: An Up-Close-And-Personal Encounter with the Standards Review Process"},"content":{"rendered":"

Again, the process to review or write quality academic standards has become a SHAM.
\nWith permission to post:<\/em><\/p>\n

An Up-Close-And-Personal Encounter with the Standards Review Process<\/p>\n

<\/b><\/p>\n

Heidi Sampson<\/b><\/p>\n

9\/25\/14<\/b><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n

It was with reserved optimism that I accepted a post on the Standards Review Panel. I was informed that this process would only look at the standards to make sure they are of the highest quality for Maine students. I was also assured by the commissioner we would be bringing in outside experts.\u00a0 Those things did not happen. In the end we looked at the standards in the narrowest, ineffective way and we never heard from a single expert. We now will have standards that are not any better than what they were and the entire effort was a total waste of time. In fact, most of the committee came with an attitude that there is nothing wrong with our current standards. \u00a0Members of the committee were defensive about every challenge; \u201cif they are perfect, why alter them?\u201d\u00a0 No one on the committee, including myself was a standards expert. I knew I was not an expert, did my homework and came prepared with substance, turning to outside experts for assistance.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Initially, when the list of members of the review panel was shared, I discovered there were no actual College Math Professors or English Professors on the panel. I expressed my concern to the commissioner, stating that if we are to have \u2018College & Career\u2019 ready standards shouldn\u2019t we include individuals well versed in the requirements for College?\u00a0 I was pleased to see a member for Math and English added to the panel. This bears repeating\u2014 there were no standards writing specialist brought to the table!<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

We were given two specific criteria with which to address the standards. 1. Clarity \u2013 Guides learning for students and\/or supports educator communication of the standard to students and parents.<\/i> 2. Rigor and College and Career Ready \u2013 Supports complexity of reasoning, breadth\/depth of content or college and\/or career readiness.<\/i>\u00a0 The latter is the weightier of the two.\u00a0 We assigned a \u20181\u2019 if the majority of the review panel felt these met the criteria and a \u20180\u2019 if we did not. My dissensions caused some consternation. Because actual additions to these standards were not an option, the last criteria only spoke to the specifics of the standards written.\u00a0 Additionally, we looked at each of these criteria in chunks of standards.\u00a0 For example Measurement and Data could include a number of standards for grades K-2, 3-5, 6-8, 9-12, and we had to judge them as a whole package. \u00a0In the end, both criteria could pass muster yet we would still completely miss the most weighty issues; developmental inappropriateness and omissions within the standards.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

I raised my concerns many times among the entire review panel, the smaller group I was a part of for the K-5 Math review team, and wrote a detailed letter to the Commissioner.\u00a0 On all three counts I was essentially dismissed, or actually silenced. \u00a0After we had completed the task, the Commissioner told me that it was unfortunate we were all finished because he wanted to figure out how they<\/i> could \u2018accommodate my concerns\u2019.\u00a0 My response was, \u201cStop jerking me around, do you really expect me to believe you?\u201d\u00a0 He responded with nothing more than placating statements.<\/p>\n

At the end of this procedure I expressed my contempt for the whole process.\u00a0 The following are the exact points I raised:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. No standard writing experts were considered, consulted or invited<\/b>.\n
      \n
    1. I corresponded and spoke with both Dr. Sandra Stotsky (author of the Massachusetts ELA standards) and Dr. Jim Milgram (author of California math standards) who were willing and available to assist us in this process.<\/li>\n
    2. I personally consulted with Audrey Buffington, a long time math specialist and textbook author, who was most helpful in dissecting these standards.<\/li>\n
    3. The commissioner challenged me that these people were not necessarily experts asking me, \u201cWhat makes them the experts?\u201d\u00a0 My response was their successful standards in MA and CA prior to the 2010 Common Core adoption. Both of these folks are renowned national experts \u2013 an undisputable fact.<\/li>\n
    4. The Commissioner then asked me \u201cWhat makes you think the California and Massachusetts standards were superior\u201d\u2026Oh-My-Gosh\u2026do I have to answer that?\u00a0 This was merely deflecting the real issue to cover his lack of diligence and honesty in this whole process. I\u2019m totally disgusted.<\/li>\n
    5. We had no one on the panel that had the least bit of standard writing expertise.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

       <\/p>\n

        \n
      1. No \u2018Proven, High Achieving Samples\u2019 were allowed as side by side comparisons<\/b>.\n
          \n
        1. This is totally devoid of the basic principle of evidence based research.<\/li>\n
        2. It\u2019s rather ironic that the Department of Education would proceed in such a manner.\u00a0 Anyone worth their salt knows the value of validated, qualified, proven facts to determine accurate conclusions.\u00a0 Not understanding that defies quality, integrity, honesty and basic scientific investigation. I find that despicable and disgraceful! I also find it to be intellectually dishonest, arrogant and foolish.<\/li>\n
        3. How will anyone, who is not a specialist at this know what is needed and what is not, what is missing and what is not, what is sequentially out of order and what is not?<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

           <\/p>\n

            \n
          1. 3.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/b>The criteria totally ignored the developmental inappropriateness of specific standards.<\/b><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

            a.\u00a0\u00a0 Over 500 Early Childhood Health and Education professionals have expressed their strong concern<\/b><\/a> with respect to these standards being developmentally inappropriate in grades K-3, especially.<\/p>\n

            b.\u00a0\u00a0 I was told by the facilitator and the commissioner that, \u201cThese things are not happening in Maine\u201d.\u00a0 So, I must conclude that we have a unique species of little human beings in Maine<\/b> – Really? (I will muster documentation to prove this issue does exist \u2013 I talk to many teachers and parents and I know for a fact that this is a problem.)<\/p>\n

            c.\u00a0\u00a0 When I spoke with Dr. Milgram, he made a profound statement about the high achieving countries. He said, \u201cThey know the limits of child development, understanding it and they do not \u00a0surpass it\u201d, therefore they have success. On the contrary we have standards that have completely ignored the child\u2019s development process and in turn exercise a wholly arrogant attitude that \u2018if we make this harder, they will get smarter\u2019.\u00a0 This defies many decades of proven teaching methodology and exposes their total ignorance of both proven teaching approaches and the student needs. This is NOT how to increase learning in K-3!<\/p>\n

             <\/p>\n

              \n
            1. 4.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/b>The criteria totally ignored the omissions that are documented, regarding these standards.<\/b>\n
                \n
              1. Under the copyright rules, the permitted 15% of additional content other states have added<\/b><\/a> to their standards is very revealing. Maine has added none.<\/li>\n
              2. Here are just a couple of quick examples; in the K-5 math under measurement and data: telling time is addressed yet days of the week, months of the year, seasons and the calendar are never addressed. Another example in math is division of a fraction with a fraction; it doesn’t exist. Shouldn\u2019t these be incorporated?<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                In a day and a half both the ELA review panel and the Math review panel completed their work; a total of less than 8 hours to determine the validity of these standards using two criteria only.<\/p>\n

                 <\/p>\n

                We spent the first half of the initial day considering general questions and concerns.\u00a0 We learned that this was part of the process for the DOE to then proceed into the APA rule making procedure for changes to Chapter 131.\u00a0 It\u2019s ironic, but this Chapter rule change was the very first legislation presented in January 2011, LD12.\u00a0 I wonder if it\u2019ll be the last piece of legislation of this term.<\/p>\n

                 <\/p>\n

                To no avail, I voiced my disappointment and objections to the facilitators and the<\/p>\n

                Commissioner. \u00a0I was dismissed as being concerned about something that was really irrelevant and insignificant. After all, am I to conclude that none of these concerns pertain to Maine?<\/p>\n

                This is utterly insulting to the future of Maine children. They have squandered an opportunity for Maine to lead the nation with proven standards.<\/p>\n

                 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

                Again, the process to review or write quality academic standards has become a SHAM. With permission to post: An Up-Close-And-Personal Encounter with the Standards Review Process Heidi Sampson 9\/25\/14 \u00a0 It was with reserved optimism that I accepted a post on the Standards Review Panel. I was informed that this process would only look at […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[20],"tags":[209,120,212,210,211],"class_list":["post-953","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-standards","tag-heidisampson","tag-maine","tag-review","tag-sham","tag-standards-2"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/stopcommoncorenh.org\/sccnh\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/953","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/stopcommoncorenh.org\/sccnh\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/stopcommoncorenh.org\/sccnh\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stopcommoncorenh.org\/sccnh\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stopcommoncorenh.org\/sccnh\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=953"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/stopcommoncorenh.org\/sccnh\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/953\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":954,"href":"https:\/\/stopcommoncorenh.org\/sccnh\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/953\/revisions\/954"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/stopcommoncorenh.org\/sccnh\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=953"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stopcommoncorenh.org\/sccnh\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=953"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stopcommoncorenh.org\/sccnh\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=953"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}