It's a generally jovial atmosphere this morning. Three or 4 tables of committees are engaged in lively discussion - everyone is participating; no one is silent. Most don't wear nametags, though all had them available. As an Observer, I'm anonymous. I was asked to sign in with my name, but I wear a nametag called "Observer". And not even the staff at the registration desk are supposed to talk to me. We laughed together about that - we were both curious about each other, so I talked about why I was here in her general direction.
These are obviously teachers, they are all truly engaged in this process; there is a lot of parsing very specific language. This is heaven for a science geek! At what I'm assuming is the Physics table, words like "mass" "energy conservation" "laboratory processes" "testable hypothesis" are flying about.
Closer to me, a table is parsing "theory" "hypothesis" "testable hypothesis" "I don't want to get into that". Too general to tell what their subject area is.
The first order of business (on paper) was to review public and expert comment on the latest version. I saw someone passing out the comments on a stick drive, and asking someone at the table to download the public comments from it; interesting that wasn't given to them more formally, and before now.
Conversation turns to how to best review the comments, and incorporate them (or not) into the existing standards. There is some confusion over what, exactly, the scope of their job is. "Are we supposed to....?"
Each table seems to be approaching their task in different ways - there doesn't seem to be specific direction/instructions about how to go about this.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment