(Hour 1a) Manchester’s decision to pursue her own academic standards instead of implementing Common Core is drawing national attention. Part of the reason for the public furor in the first place was a lack of communication and transparency with the public. A problem that is likely to resurface if the educrats make those mistakes again.
Manchester’s decision on Common Core draws National attention
Sandra Stotsky and James Milgram were extremely generous in their offer to work with the committee and review the standards. However, why rely solely upon
out-of-state experts to the EXCLUSION of local parents, many of whom have expertise and experience, who are being shut out of this supposedly “transparent” process of
rebuilding Manchester Academic Standards? Richard H. Girard is wrong and is undermining local control of the process by denigrating the efforts of local citizens in this manner.
Having just listened to this segment again and reread my article outlining how to provide transparency (http://www.girardatlarge.com/2013/10/transparency-defined-creation-manchester-academic-standards/) I am at a loss to see where I’ve recommended excluding anyone, undermined local control, or denigrated the efforts of any local citizen.
May I suggest you listen again and reread what I’ve offered?
Transparency doesn’t come by looking over people’s shoulders as they do their work. It comes from ensuring that the product of that work, at a minimum, goes through the established, known public processes that exist to enable public scrutiny and comment.
Had the Manchester Board of School Committee and School District followed their own policies and procedures in consideration of Common Core, then had it been installed in the schools, it would have been done so in full public view.
They didn’t do that which resulted in a public outcry that forced them to revisit the issue and resulted in the arrival at this point in time. I’d like to think our efforts to hold them accountable for their lack of transparency played enough of a roll in that outcome that we’d not be considered opposed to transparency or those in search of it.
If that’s not the case, then so be it. I will continue to advocate for what I believe to be a proper and reasonable process in which the district and board openly and appropriately communicate its recommendations to the public to provide it with ample time to review and comment before decisions are made.
Respectfully,
You can be sure that the nonsense discovered thanks to CC was going on for years before, and will continue even if CC is dumped because this is what the education industry and consultants from the pseudo governmental organizations are pushing. Public education needs a good clean up and clean out. Kick these bums out. They have NO clue how teachers teach or how kids learn.
If the superintendent favors transparency and her committee is reviewing and compiling the best standards to build the Manchester Academic Standards, there should be no objection to allowing citizens to OBSERVE this process. There is no precedent for this type of curricular re-write based upon public outcry. The superintendent should want to allay the public’s concerns and rebuild their trust. What better way than allowing the public to OBSERVE this process?
Richard H. Girard is wrong to suggest that out-of-state “expert” scrutiny is good, and that LOCAL scrutiny would derail the process. This cult of expertise is what has been undermining common sense and LOCAL CONTROL of education for decades. The public is constantly being told that only experts know how to instruct your children. Try explaining that to a homeschooler and see if they don’t ROFL.