Georgia State Superintendent of Schools on evolution: more Republican strangeness

[sigh]

I think he just wants to get along...

Can't we all just get along?

Bring your whisky to my house and we'll talk. I bet you drink a good brand.

Now try to focus and respond to my points, please.

 

[Fawkin'Injun]

Whenever he wins, he proclaims me a drunk and he' always winning!

I'm hapy here in my cups, humbly M'lord...

Humbly!

 

[Fawkin'Injun]

Bring your whisky to my house and we'll talk. I bet you drink a good brand.

Now try to focus and respond to my points, please.

-------------------------

 

[Problem Child]

PC, that's LT's line...

You're confused (as usual).

LT would have said something like BooHoo or accuse the closest poster of being racist.

 

[fille]

So you're saying the Democrats don't expend most of their energy protecting their interests?

I will laugh an awful lot of you say "yes".

No, I meant the interests of the very well off.

 

[morninggirl5]

Okay, here i go trying to explain this.


The curriculum revision was done by a PANEL of teachers and curriculum experts after an audit of the Georgia curriculum showed that teaching the QCC's (the old curriculum) would take 23 or 24 years.

The QCC's covered everything and led to mastery of nothing.

The new Performance Standards don't leave out the concept of evolution. It includes several different evolutionary concepts to be taught in biology and introduces them in earlier grades.

There is a group of people angry because there isn't a section on evolution. There's another group of people angry because the Social Studies curriculum breaks American History and World History up into several years instead of trying to cram it all in in one year.

Kathy Cox is doing the right thing for the students in Georgia. I have read the Proposed Curriculum Standards. I have a copy of all the relevant standards for my grade level in my classroom already. The new curriculum will actually BE a curriculum instead of a hodge podge of what every Tom, Dick and Harry who hasn't had an effect in a classroom since he scraped by and got a high school diploma "knows" should be taught.

Read the Science standards. They're online. Here's the link to the Biology Standards -- http://www.glc.k12.ga.us/passwd/trc/ttools/attach/curriculum/science/GaBioCur.pdf

Taken from page 11 of the draft

Benchmark
There are historical scientific models of change, such as those of Lamarck, Malthus, Wallace,
Buffone, and Darwin. Evidence from fossil, molecular biology, and anatomical structures suggest
relationships among organisms. As climatic conditions change, organisms that do not adapt die off;
those organisms suitably adapted survive. Over time, the proportion of individuals that have
advantageous characteristics will increase. Heritable characteristics can be observed at molecular
and whole-organism levels in structure, chemistry, and behavior. Natural selection leads to
organisms that are well suited for survival in particular environments. Chance alone can result in the
persistence of some heritable characteristics having no survival or reproductive advantage for the
organism. When an environment changes, the survival value of some inherited characteristics may
change.
SB7. Students will be familiar with the development of living organisms and their changes
over time, including inherited characteristics that lead to survival of organisms and their
successive generations.
a. Students will relate the nature of science to the progression of historical scientific models of
change over time.
b. Students will relate reproductive isolation to speciation.

 

[JazzManJim]

No, I meant the interests of the very well off.

I know what you meant and the question's still valid.

Do you seriously believe the Democrats in, say Congress aren't looking out for the very well off? Hell, they're very well off themselves and are not particularly known for being generous with money that's theirs.

You think they're going to jack taxes on just the rich? Feh. No chance. They say that because it's nice, juicy red meat for the section of the population who thinks the rich are all carbon copies of C. Montgomery Burns. It's easy to talk smack about the rich when you're sitting on a 300 million dollar nest-egg yourself or because you make your living on fees garnered from suing them. It's great to talk about being fiscally responsible and how your budget balances when your state has the second-highest tax burden in the country. It makes for the best soundbytes ever, but it's steaming fecal matter all the same.

I'm not saying the Republicans are much better in that regard, but of those in the party I do respect, I respect because they give a no-bullshit assessment of why we need the rich in our economy. That's certainly not all of them by a long stretch, but it's more than elsewhere.

 

[JazzManJim]

Okay, here i go trying to explain this.

I was wondering when you'd get here.

Thanks for the refreshing drenching of expertise!

 

[Ishmael]

No, I meant the interests of the very well off.

Hmmmm. Which party has the highest percentage of millionaires in the Senate and Congress?

Ishmael

 

[morninggirl5]

I was wondering when you'd get here.

Thanks for the refreshing drenching of expertise!

I'm waiting for the other screaming rant about the curriculum. The evolution crap got the headlines but the other one started first.



The third won't make the news because it's gonna be the hysterics of teachers who don't read the entire document and only see the coprporation that was used for the K-3 Literacy Standards.

 

[Problem Child]

I'm waiting for the other screaming rant about the curriculum. The evolution crap got the headlines but the other one started first.



The third won't make the news because it's gonna be the hysterics of teachers who don't read the entire document and only see the coprporation that was used for the K-3 Literacy Standards.

I thought the argument was about dropping the word "evolution" - not dropping the teaching of it.

 

[JazzManJim]

I'm waiting for the other screaming rant about the curriculum. The evolution crap got the headlines but the other one started first.



The third won't make the news because it's gonna be the hysterics of teachers who don't read the entire document and only see the coprporation that was used for the K-3 Literacy Standards.

FWIW, I'm on your side on this.

I, personally, think there's a lot of value to be had in taking your time to teach the subjects. There's no reason we sholdn't break history and science up into more pieces and teach them over a longer period of time, even if that means pushing some of the material down a grade or two.

Yes, it'll present more of an academic challenge for the students, but isn't that what school is for?

 

[RobDownSouth]

Okay, here i go trying to explain this.


The curriculum revision was done by a PANEL of teachers and curriculum experts after an audit of the Georgia curriculum showed that teaching the QCC's (the old curriculum) would take 23 or 24 years.

Oh, well if it was done by a PANEL, that changes things completely!

Interestingly, a scan through the document you linked found zero occurances of the word Evolution. I did see the weasel words "biological change over time" though. To me, thats the equivalent taking "Christianity" and substituting "people who pray a lot over time".

And I'm sorry, but I think given a choice between doing the "right thing" and the "right wing thing", Kathy Cox would choose the first option.

 

[JazzManJim]

Oh, well if it was done by a PANEL, that changes things completely!

Interestingly, a scan through the document you linked found zero occurances of the word Evolution. I did see the weasel words "biological change over time" though. To me, thats the equivalent taking "Christianity" and substituting "people who pray a lot over time".

And I'm sorry, but I think given a choice between doing the "right thing" and the "right wing thing", Kathy Cox would choose the first option.

You ought to be sorry, missing the actual point of her post like that.

The point was that the whole kerfuffle is over nothing. The curriculum was revised because it was horrible. This curriculum was built by a group (like that word better) of experts, including those who spend every day actually teaching children.

And just perhaps the removal of the word "evolution" was an effort to remove what is often a loaded term from the program. That way, you don't have to scuffle over one word while still being able to teach a solid science program which still involves evolution. It was a niftly little solution to a problem.

 

[morninggirl5]

Oh, well if it was done by a PANEL, that changes things completely!

Interestingly, a scan through the document you linked found zero occurances of the word Evolution. I did see the weasel words "biological change over time" though. To me, thats the equivalent taking "Christianity" and substituting "people who pray a lot over time".

And I'm sorry, but I think given a choice between doing the "right thing" and the "right wing thing", Kathy Cox would choose the first option.

I agree Kathy Cox will do the "right thing" for the students in the state of Georgia.

Zero instances of the word evolution because the Biology Curriculum is teaching more than evolution of species over time, but also biological changes over time in the life cycle of a species or even a single specimen.

Here's one of the Kindergarten Science Standards that demonstrates this.

Benchmarks There are differences among individuals of one kind within a population. Offspring are very much like their parents and like one another, but they are also different. SKL2. Students will compare the similarities and differences in groups of organisms.

And a corresponding Second grade Standard. (I'm saving it because i refuse to give up my butterflies each spring.)

Benchmarks Living things grow in different ways and in different environments and can be compared by the way they change as they grow. S2L3. Students will research the life cycles of various plants and animals.

 

[RobDownSouth]

You ought to be sorry, missing the actual point of her post like that.

The point was that the whole kerfuffle is over nothing. The curriculum was revised because it was horrible. This curriculum was built by a group (like that word better) of experts, including those who spend every day actually teaching children.

And just perhaps the removal of the word "evolution" was an effort to remove what is often a loaded term from the program. That way, you don't have to scuffle over one word while still being able to teach a solid science program which still involves evolution. It was a niftly little solution to a problem.

That's YOUR opinion that the existing curriculum is horrible.

I am of the opinion that the curriculum needs adjusting, not overhaul.

Jim, there is a concerted effort down here to "dumb down" the curriculum solely to inflate test scores. The entire education process is being revamped to "teach to the test".

My children escaped that narrow mindset in the Florida public school systems when I relocated to Georgia. I'm determined to speak out to prevent that from happening here.

 

[JazzManJim]

That's YOUR opinion that the existing curriculum is horrible.

I am of the opinion that the curriculum needs adjusting, not overhaul.

You haven't been reading this thread, have you?

That the curriculum needed overhaul isn't merely my opinion, at lest on this thread. It's also apparently the opinion of someone on this thread who teaches in that state and approves gratly of the curriculum.

If I had to chooce to give your opinion credence or hers, I have to pick her. She knows what she's talking about and has proven it frequently.

Edited to note that spreading subjects out like American and world History instead of cramming them together in one year speaks to a more detailed and rigorous curriculum, not one that's "dumbed down".

 

[morninggirl5]

That's YOUR opinion that the existing curriculum is horrible.

I am of the opinion that the curriculum needs adjusting, not overhaul.

Jim, there is a concerted effort down here to "dumb down" the curriculum solely to inflate test scores. The entire education process is being revamped to "teach to the test".

My children escaped that narrow mindset in the Florida public school systems when I relocated to Georgia. I'm determined to speak out to prevent that from happening here.

Dumbing down the curriculum??? How much of the new Performance Standards have you actually spent the time reading?

The current QCC's are a joke. I teach 80% of the Kindergarten objectives in the fall semester and spend the rest of the year teaching what my students actually need to know to be ready for first grade. The new Standards are aligned with what i'm teaching. They involve an expectation of a high level of achievement, not the bare minimum necessary to be promoted.

The entire education system is not being revamped to "teach to the test". This curriculum is being developed to expect a high level of achievement and the CRCT (Critereon Referenced Competency Test) will be rewritten to reflect the new curriculum.

And yes, it's MY Opinion that the QCC's are terrible. That was also the opinion of the professionals who audited the curriculum. They termed it a "mile wide and an inch deep." The QCC's led to teaching to the test because they were so broad that real learning could not occur. Ask a few teachers how they use the QCC's. The truth is, they don't. They reference them in their lesson plans because they're required to and that's pretty much it. I can teach practically anything i want in my classroom because without much of a stretch at all, i can find a Kindergarten QCC that will fit the topic.

The proposed Performance Standards will lead to teaching and learning, not activities and test taking drills.

 

[sigh]

You know, I hardly ever start threads because before you know it, it's off on zippy little topics that have nothing to do with your original point. Not that they're bad topics, only different.

I'd much rather do that to somebody else's thread than have it be done to mine.

Ah well. Have fun, all.

 

[miles]

Dumbing down the curriculum??? How much of the new Performance Standards have you actually spent the time reading?

The current QCC's are a joke. I teach 80% of the Kindergarten objectives in the fall semester and spend the rest of the year teaching what my students actually need to know to be ready for first grade. The new Standards are aligned with what i'm teaching. They involve an expectation of a high level of achievement, not the bare minimum necessary to be promoted.

The entire education system is not being revamped to "teach to the test". This curriculum is being developed to expect a high level of achievement and the CRCT (Critereon Referenced Competency Test) will be rewritten to reflect the new curriculum.

And yes, it's MY Opinion that the QCC's are terrible. That was also the opinion of the professionals who audited the curriculum. They termed it a "mile wide and an inch deep." The QCC's led to teaching to the test because they were so broad that real learning could not occur. Ask a few teachers how they use the QCC's. The truth is, they don't. They reference them in their lesson plans because they're required to and that's pretty much it. I can teach practically anything i want in my classroom because without much of a stretch at all, i can find a Kindergarten QCC that will fit the topic.

The proposed Performance Standards will lead to teaching and learning, not activities and test taking drills.

Get those fucking facts outta here.

 

[JazzManJim]

You know, I hardly ever start threads because before you know it, it's off on zippy little topics that have nothing to do with your original point. Not that they're bad topics, only different.

I'd much rather do that to somebody else's thread than have it be done to mine.

Ah well. Have fun, all.

Hey, wait a minute now.

My posts here have hit the removing of the word "evolution", the hypocrisy issue, and the curriculum issue.

What'd I miss??

 

[sigh]

Hey, wait a minute now.

My posts here have hit the removing of the word "evolution", the hypocrisy issue, and the curriculum issue.

What'd I miss??

You didn't tell me I was pretty. Now I'm gonna pout.

Actually, what you missed was my point about the flip-flop of the Republican party in the last few years. I know my thread title led you all astray, and that's cool, I take responsibility for that, but really it's about hypocrisy and pandering to special groups. And taking advantage of a moment in power to cram a Republican version of the American dream down people's throats when their whole political history has been to decry using federal powers in such ways.

Not discounting a thing that mg-5 has to say on this (and I'm glad to hear she thinks things will improve) but taking out a word while teaching the concept is no better than the liberal PC crap right-wingers have been going crazy about for what seems like forever.

People not standing by their convictions. That's what pisses me off.

(Or at least I think that's what it was about. I've started in on a bottle of Bailey's over ice, and things are getting a bit fuddled. Suddenly, Injun is making sense!)

 

[GeorgeWBush]

(does anyone really believe no child will be left behind?).

No because they just pass them thru the system.

 

[JazzManJim]

You didn't tell me I was pretty. Now I'm gonna pout.

Actually, what you missed was my point about the flip-flop of the Republican party in the last few years. I know my thread title led you all astray, and that's cool, I take responsibility for that, but really it's about hypocrisy and pandering to special groups. And taking advantage of a moment in power to cram a Republican version of the American dream down people's throats when their whole political history has been to decry using federal powers in such ways.

Not discounting a thing that mg-5 has to say on this (and I'm glad to hear she thinks things will improve) but taking out a word while teaching the concept is no better than the liberal PC crap right-wingers have been going crazy about for what seems like forever.

People not standing by their convictions. That's what pisses me off.

(Or at least I think that's what it was about. I've started in on a bottle of Bailey's over ice, and things are getting a bit fuddled. Suddenly, Injun is making sense!)

Feh...my entire existence is dedicated to esposing your prettiness to any and all who would hear it. I sing the sigh electric!

I hit that theme in a couple of threads, although it wasn't where each thread started. I gave the Republican's a couple boots to the groin for the flip-flop they've made, and I even gave a potential reason for their doing so.

Look, no self-respecting conservative believed that the President was one even when he was running for office. They certainly aren't happy about a huge part of his spending plans, his immigration plan, etc. Hell, look over a couple or three conservative blogs and you'll see the ruckus that's happening. There's a growing contingent among conservatives, and I'm very close to being one, that's considering not voting for the President. The two issues I mentioned earlier keep most of us where we are.

I think, though, that the President *is* standing by his convictions when it comes to social spending. Hell, that's been his mantra since he was a candidate.

 

[sigh]

Feh...my entire existence is dedicated to esposing your prettiness to any and all who would hear it. I sing the sigh electric!

I hit that theme in a couple of threads, although it wasn't where each thread started. I gave the Republican's a couple boots to the groin for the flip-flop they've made, and I even gave a potential reason for their doing so.

Look, no self-respecting conservative believed that the President was one even when he was running for office. They certainly aren't happy about a huge part of his spending plans, his immigration plan, etc. Hell, look over a couple or three conservative blogs and you'll see the ruckus that's happening. There's a growing contingent among conservatives, and I'm very close to being one, that's considering not voting for the President. The two issues I mentioned earlier keep most of us where we are.

I think, though, that the President *is* standing by his convictions when it comes to social spending. Hell, that's been his mantra since he was a candidate.

You are consistent, Jim. Consistently wrong , of course, but you do stick by your guns regardless of how it makes those you support look. It's the main reason I like you so much (well, that and your handcuffs ).