Talk Back to Scholar Here... Civil discourse required, but we value clarity over agreement.
Yet to call the Commissioner's "Standards" public is to deny the make-up of the committee was stacked against people who are knowledgeable about teaching and learning.
Just because you shop at Lunds, does not make you qualified to run the company. Everyone is not an expert on education, just because they went to a school.
On top of appointing members of an ideological think-tank to create the Civics Standards, the Commissioner stacked the committee with Private and homeschool advocates who will never have to adhere to these terrible standards.
The Commissioner then ignored not only the VAST amount of negative CITIZEN feedback asking her to start all over, she also ignored the solicited reviewers.
This points to ideology, not democracy.
You are mistaken in calling these "citizen standards."
MinnBEST maintains the Commissioner's thin veneer of openess belies a secretive process.
Thanks
MinnBEST
There is an excellent critique of The SCSCU Scholar's King B's position on the Alternative Standards.
Everyone should take a look at it.
I find it insulting for the standards knowledge critics to oppose freedom of speech from anyone who is not a public school parent. Last time I checked, everyone pays taxes to fund the schools. That includes public school parents, private school parents, homeschool parents, grandparents, and even people who do not have children.
Unless standards critics advocate "taxation without representation," they would welcome thoughts from all parties involved. Private school parents, homeschool parents, grandparents, and even people who do not have children invest just as much into the public education system as do public school parents.
To deny them the right to speak would be to deny one of the very basic, fundamental principlse upon which our country has been based.
We do not have "taxation without representation" in America - at least last time I checked.
Scholar wrote:
"Jason Sellars, a social studies teacher at Eagan High School, supports the standards but also pointed out various areas for improvement." (1/29)
I know Jason and on a whim today I decided to check out the story. Here's his response:
"actually, you were right to question that interpretation of my testimony.
as a department, and as an individual, we at ehs support "standards in general" to standardize some areas of historical curriculum requirements. however, and i was clear to point this out to the committee, we did not support the standards proposal as worded before the committee at that time, and we do not support the current draft either because of the many concerns that we have discussed before. so, the characterization of my testimony was
a little inaccurate. i, and most teachers, support standards as a whole. however, that's a far cry from supporting "these" standards, if you
understand what i mean."
"Sunlight is the best disinfectant."
I received an e-mail from Jason this morning, and corrected the article per his request. I regret the error and appreciate the opportunity to correct it.
Matt Abe
Part 1
"I find it insulting for the standards knowledge critics to oppose freedom of speech from anyone who is not a public school parent."
No one is opposing free speech for anyone.
We are not talking about speech, we are talking about policy.
All of us are welcome to speech and should have input into policy. There was never any disagreement that a homeschool parent and a private school administrator could be on the committee.
See next
Part 2
But their overrepresentation is akin to having Massachusettes set the daily legislative agenda for all of the states in the Union. It is not that Mass. is not a great state, but why do they get to set an agenda they do not have to live by? They may have great ideas they want to share with Minnesota and their ideas may be adopted by Minnesota, but they do not set the agenda.
Massachusettes pays taxes like the rest of us and supports the BWCA, headstart, Title one, aid to states, NCLB and a host of other federal programs. Yet, that does not give them the right to dictate to Minnesotans.
This is the argument the Founders had.
Proportional Representation vs. Equal Representation. In the end they went for both. When we did our standards in Minnesota, the Commissioner assumed that the smallest population should run the whole show.
So please remove that argument from your arsenal, it does not hold up.
I am glad to see that you recognize and welcome alternative perspectives from homeschool parents, private school parents, grandparents and those with no children. This sentiment varies greatly from that expressed by Edina teacher Lonnie Skretner (who spoke at the MAPSSS rally) at the Normandale College debate when she stated that private school teachers, administrators, and home schoolers are not stakeholders in the process. I hope to see your new recognition of free speech and alternative perspectives welcomed in your policies.
I don’t understand your MA example. To some extent a single state and judicial policy does affect the entire country through the full faith and credit clause. However, I don’t see your point in bringing that up because we are talking about taxation without representation here. We don’t pay taxes in MA – unless you earn income in both MN and MA.
I agree that we have equal representation in the US Senate and proportional representation in the US House. Again, however, what does that have to do with taxation without representation?
On the 14 member writing committee, it is my understanding that three of the members either home schooled their children or were involved with private schools. This is less than ¼ of the committee. By far, they did not represent the majority on the committee and could have easily been outvoted.
"This sentiment varies greatly from that expressed by Edina teacher Lonnie Skretner"
Not at all. I saw the reports and the scurrilous letter directed at her from Chuck Chalberg from Normandale.
http://batgar.no-ip.com:82/minnb....php?
article.46
The issue that all the opponents of these standards had was that those that have no stake in the product should not be running the show. No one ever said they could not be a proportional part of the process.
"We don’t pay taxes in MA – unless you earn income in both MN and MA."
No, but we pay federal taxes that go toward things in MA. That is the point. People give up certain rights in order to gain a government that protects other, more important rights.
When I opt out of a government service that does not mean that I no longer have to pay for it. Nor does it mean that I can do more than make my opinion known in a public forum.
I don't use state or national parks. I am not an outdoors person. Does that mean that I am so lacking in civic mindedness that I am unwilling to pay for them? Absolutely not.
My paying taxes does not mean that if there is an issue that will never effect me in a park that I am qualified to lead the policy on how it will be dealt with. I would appreciate being asked and maybe I have the answer to the problem, but more likely, users of the system will best be able to guide policy makers.
See next..........
So public schools are a public good even if you, individually, choose not to use it and take another choice. When it comes to the policy of public schools, it is the stakeholders who should have been put in charge in all the committees.
"By far, they did not represent the majority on the committee and could have easily been outvoted."
In the final writing committee, disciplines were divided up. The problem is not with Geography or Economics. There, Professors, public school teachers and parents were leading and they are not the standards that are the problem. If all the standards were like that, there would not be a vast opposition movement.
History eventually brought in experts and got documents that will do only some harm if implemented.
So where their were experts and public school parents and teachers, there is much less problem.
The final writing committee was not a voting process, it was a secretive undemocratic process where certain people like Bruce Sanborn and Bridget Sutton controlled the process and the product. This despite the commentary in today's strib calling the process open.
Thus my original point. The thin veneer of openness conceals a secretive, selective process.
Ah, so what you are really objecting to is the writing committee. At some point, you reach a point of diminishing returns with the large group, where you are either at consensus or very close. To continue to meet as a large group, rather than delegate a writing committee as we did, becomes unnecessarily cumbersome. The public oversight, of which you and MAPSSS were an integral part, did continue with the release of the second and third (legislators') drafts.
I maintain that all citizens are stakeholders in the outcomes of public education.
Matt Abe
"To continue to meet as a large group, rather than delegate a writing committee as we did, becomes unnecessarily cumbersome."
Democracy is cumbersome. Tyranny is efficient.
The choice is ours.
Also remember that we have only been talking about one reason why the Social Studies standards from the Commissioner were so bad.
There are plenty of other reasons and after that, there are the standards themselves.
This discussion is narrow in focus to your original criticism of the alternative standards as an "unknown process"
All the best,
"The public oversight, of which you and MAPSSS were an integral part, did continue with the release of the second and third (legislators') drafts."
But, let's face it; the public was vastly ignored during the process.
Those that disagreed with the Commissioner were told we were part of a "Hate America" agenda.
The University Professors were called "Revisionists" and "out of the mainstream"
After the St.Paul hearing, The commissioner said there was a gap between "Liberal Teachers" unhappy with the standards and "parents" who, we are left to assume, were happy with them, as if teachers are not parents.
For the next versions there was tinkering around the edges and random action verbs thrown in but no substantive changes were made in the form of the document.
See next......
The document still had grievous factual errors until version 4.
The civics group that eventually made the alternative civics standards provided 74 pages of changes that were ignored by Sanborn and Co.
They did, however, adopt at the Commissioner's request the Examples column.
This was a secretive and undemocratic process that in the end lost it's efficiency because it will all be redone under a new administration.
The process failed Minnesotans, and Minnesota's kids are not the better for it.
MinnBEST
You call the writing committee process a "secretive undemocratic process." Yet, on your website, you have endorsed Kelley's "Alternative#1 standards."
I have yet to discover who all of the members on that "self-appointed writing committee" are. The public was never invited to observe that writing process.
If your concern is an open democratic process, why are you endorsing theKelley's "Aletnerative#1 standards?"
Not even the Senators voting on those standards had time to read them, much less the public or anyone else!
"The problem is not with Geography or Economics."
Then why are there new economic standards?
"When I opt out of a government service that does not mean that I no longer have to pay for it. Nor does it mean that I can do more than make my opinion known in a public forum."
I disagree. If you have an interest in public park policy, and are knowledgable on the issue, you have the opportunity to be involved in setting policy even if you don’t camp yourself. In America, in most things, everyone has an equal chance at participation. That's what you call freedom.
"The issue that all the opponents of these standards had was that those that have no stake in the product should not be running the show. No one ever said they could not be a proportional part of the process."
I have never heard you or MAPSSS say that this should be a proportional process. To say that only public school parents are stakeholders seems to me that you want to exclude all others from the process.
If 3 of the 14, less that 1/4, came from alternative school backgrounds, what would your suggestion of a proportional representation be?
"This sentiment varies greatly from that expressed by Edina teacher Lonnie Skretner"
Not at all. I saw the reports and the scurrilous letter directed at her from Chuck Chalberg from Normandale.
http://batgar.no-ip.com:82/minnb....php?
article.46
---
The article in the url you reference was published on December 9, 2003, long before the January 30, 2004 debate took place in which Skretner made those remarks. How can you factually clain that Chalberg's comments were directed towards Skretner? Do you have some proof that Chalberg knows the future and can tell what others will say before they say it?
Whoops.
Referenced the wrong article
Sorry
http://batgar.no-ip.com:82/minnb....php?
article.19
There you go.
You call the writing committee process a "secretive undemocratic process." Yet, on your website, you have endorsed Kelley's "Alternative#1 standards."
I have yet to discover who all of the members on that "self-appointed writing committee" are. The public was never invited to observe that writing process.
That is simple.
They are the least destructive to public schooling.
Remember, this discussion started because scholar said this was an "open" process.
I do not argue that Alternative one was done in the open, just that the product is far superior.
Now that MCSS is involved, It is even more superior.
I suspect all will be revealed as the process moves through the Yecke hearings and to the Senate floor.
Then why are there new economic standards?
Because that was part of what MCSS wanted fixed.
My opinion was that the Econ standards were, as Douglas Adams said, "Mostly Harmless."
"I disagree. If you have an interest in public park policy, and are knowledgable on the issue, you have the opportunity to be involved in setting policy even if you don’t camp yourself. In America, in most things, everyone has an equal chance at participation. That's what you call freedom."
Answering the question you wished I'd asked!
Good trick. I use it all the time so please don't do it to me.
Even going with your point, these people making the history and civics standards were not "knowlegable," they had no idea what they were doing!
That is obvious by the product.
Check out the paid, solicited reviews on this page.
http://batgar.no-ip.com:82/minnb...taged/
links.php
BTW. These reviews were covered up by the DoE until a reviewer (Martel) sent his out to University Professors.
After a few phone calls, the negative reviews "magically" appear on the website.
More secrecy and cover-up.
Martel has endorsed the MCSS civics standards.
"I have never heard you or MAPSSS say that this should be a proportional process. To say that only public school parents are stakeholders seems to me that you want to exclude all others from the process."
The discovery of what was happening to us in Minnesota took a long time.
I have learned more about the world of thinktanks than I ever wanted to through this process and I would still be in blissful ignorance had the Commissioner done a good job.
So...what venue has there been to talk about representation on the committee?
MAPSSS and MinnBEST have maintained since day one that the Commissioner's committee be disolved and a more representative one be formed to begin again. See the MAPSSS petition and homepage.
http://www.petitiononline.com/ma...2/
petition.html
www.MAPSSS.org
All the Best
If 3 of the 14, less that 1/4, came from alternative school backgrounds, what would your suggestion of a proportional representation be?
MCSS has said:
Therefore be it resolved that:
a new set of Social Studies standards be drafted by a diverse, multi-partisan committee of well-qualified stakeholders, a majority of whom are currently active, licensed K-12 public-school teachers.
That would work.
“Now that MCSS is involved, It is even more superior.”
You confirmed my suspicion. Your real concern is not that the process be open, but rather that you be involved in the process.
All of your concern about an open process seems to have evaporated with the introduction of Kelley’s alternative drafts. The “open process concern” was simply a convenient reason to oppose the standards, which you disliked because you were not appointed to serve on that committee.
You know a Senator, who to my knowledge no longer has children in the K-12 system and yet controls education policy (something which you should oppose). MCSS, as in interest group, have Senator Kelley’s ear.
I want to see what happens when every other interest group in Minnesota, whether they be Communist, Green, Constitution, Libertarian, Democrat, Republican etc. etc., begin demanding a proportional place at the standards table.
I take it MCSS is now in the Senate’s drivers seat of writing standards.
MCSS: “We want economics changed.”
Senator Kelley: “So be it.”
MCSS: “We want to take out the 10th Amendment.”
Senator Kelley: “So be it.”
MCSS: “We want to take out the 2nd Amendment.”
Senator Kelley: “So be it.”
MCSS: “We want to take out National Sovereignty.”
Senator Kelley: “So be it.”
MCSS: “We want kids to be global citizens.”
Senator Kelley: “So be it.”
MCSS: “We want kids to be activists.”
Senator Kelley: “So be it.”
MCSS: “We want to take be environmentalists.”
Senator Kelley: “So be it.”
Where does it stop?
The 10th amendment is in the alternative civics standards 5 times, but in the commissioner's standards only once. The second amendment is included 4 times in the alternative civics and only once in the commissioner's standards. It would be nice if you had your facts straight.
I'm glad you put them in so many times to overcompensate for your original "deletion" of them.
On Thursday, March 18th, when Kelley's alternative standards were first presented before the Senate, the 2nd and 10th amendment were not mentioned.
It was only after critics pointed that out that the "nameless faces" behind Kelley's alternative standards scrambled to overcomensate and put those things back in.
I can't believe that the "self-acclaimed" experts who have "honestly forgotten" to talk about the 2nd and 10th amendment in their original draft.
Get your facts right.
"You confirmed my suspicion. Your real concern is not that the process be open, but rather that you be involved in the process."
You keep trying to confirm your own prejudices, Brian.
That is no way to learn things.
What does MCSS do? They have a conference every year. That's all.
MCSS was perfectly content to let good standards come out of the Commissioner's process.
Unfortunately, it did not so MCSS, as the only statewide Social Studies organization, had to do something. So they did.
MCSS: “We want to take be environmentalists.”
Senator Kelley: “So be it.”
This is just silly.
What possible leverage would a bunch of teachers making 50 grand a year who can't even vote for him have ove Senator Kelly?
MCSS doesn't make contributions. There is no reason for that square.
Be reasonable.
"I'm glad you put them in so many times to overcompensate for your original "deletion" of them.
On Thursday, March 18th, when Kelley's alternative standards were first presented before the Senate, the 2nd and 10th amendment were not mentioned."
Cool! Look! You made a difference and got your issue in!
See the process is more open than you first realized!
All:
Thank you for participating in this ongoing discussion. Please defend your positions to the last, but we are teetering on the edge of flame wars here. Please remember to keep it clean or use the e-mail link to take it offline.
I appreciate the participation of all. Scholar and I value clarity over agreement!
Thanks,
Matt Abe
References to the 2nd and 10th amendments were in the original version, just as they are now. It simply requires that one read the document, not just use the search tool. Look for Amendments 1-10! The revised version opted to spell out the "Bill or Rights" for those who might not remember which amendments are in the Bill of Rights.
And for those of you arguing that national sovereignty is in the Declaration of Independence, please site your sources. As an advocate for strict construction, I do not see it in the words.
Commenting by HaloScan
