Judge Norman Jackson wrote an excellent article which the Deseret News published yesterday. Here’s how it starts and a link to the article.
We the people of the state of Utah declare that we and our children are free and independent of the federal government and absolved of any allegiance when educating our children.
First, the right to educate our children was reserved to parents by the 10th amendment of our U.S. Constitution. But for 50 years the feds have imposed creeping controls upon schools, children and teachers. It’s time to set them free from top-down government micromanagement at all levels.
Second, the Utah Legislature has declared: “It is the public policy of this state that parents retain the fundamental right and duty to exercise primary control over the care, supervision, upbringing and education of their children.”
Why then are our state and school leaders also usurping our fundamental rights?
HSLDA has previously written articles expressing concerns with the Common Core Standards established in 2009 and the move toward national standards, curriculum, and tests.
A related concern is the rise of state databases of student-specific data, and the recent push toward aligning them between states. We believe that this will lead to a national database of student-specific data.
Home School Legal Defense Association has long opposed the creation of a national database of student-specific data. We believe that such national databases threaten the privacy of students, could be abused by government officials or business interests that may gain access to the data, threaten the safety of young people if their data is breached, and are not necessary in order to educate young people. Education should be about instilling academic knowledge, not some Orwellian attempt to track students from pre-school through college graduation. We believe that although these databases are being advanced by individual states, they are aligned between the states, and are being funded in part through the federal government’s Race to the Top program. They are becoming a de facto national database.
HSLDA is working to determine if these databases include the personal data of students who are educated in homeschool or private school settings. We have confirmed that New York City school district is including the data of homeschool students in the New York state database. This is extremely concerning to HSLDA and homeschool parents. We are currently investigating if other states are doing this. And we believe that as national databases grow, it will become increasingly difficult to protect the personal information of homeschool and private school students.
UTAH’S PARENTS DENIED DUE DILIGENCE AND DUE PROCESS: STATE SCHOOL BOARD APPROVES FEDERAL COMMON CORE STANDARDS AND ASSESSMENTS
By Norman H. Jackson, Judge, Utah Court of Appeals, Retired. – January 28, 2013
The Utah State Board of Education adopted Federal Common Core Education Standards in 2010 without giving notice to Utah’s citizens or their Legislature.
The Board signed on to Common Core to secure Federal Race-To-The-Top funding. Funding was denied. But, Utah remains locked into the Federal mandates.
The Board breached its fiduciary duty to the public by failing to do Due Diligence before acting. The action constituted a denial of citizen’s rights to Due Process.
Mitt Romney said Common Core is a mistake because the time may come when the Federal Government has an agenda it wants to promote. That time has arrived.
Obama’s “Vision 2020 Roadmap” outlines the agenda:
Control education
Compel the States into resource distribution
To “direct remedy” any failure to comply
UTAH’S PARENTS DENIED DUE DILIGENCE AND DUE PROCESS: STATE SCHOOL BOARD ADOPTS FEDERAL EDUCATION COMMON CORE STANDARDS AND ASSESSMENTS
By Norman H. Jackson, Judge, Utah Court of Appeals, Retired PAPER – January 28, 2013
Utah’s State Board of Education adopted the Federal Common Core State Standards Initiative before they, or anyone else knew, what the Standards would be. The Federal curriculum, assessments and other materials had not been written and some are still being drafted. We, and our legislators, had no notice of this action, and have no voice in the ongoing production of Common Core. This procedure has usurped basic education policy and content decisions from parents and our elected representatives. The National takeover rolls on despite the fact that most conservative legislators polled at the 2012 Utah State Convention voiced opposition to Common Core’s federal mandates. Further, these mandates are contrary to the Tenth Amendment of the U. S. Constitution which reserves control over education to the states and the people.
Here is the factual background and timeline for the creation and progress of Common Core. Education “reformers” have worked for decades to impose national education standards. The current phase began during the 2008 Presidential election when it was introduced as uniform “American Standards”. As the Obama administration came into power, their vision for nationalizing education was labeled “Benchmarking For Success”. To avoid the scrutiny of the democratic process, they used the Stimulus Bill to distribute an enormous pot of money to the U. S. Dept. of Education. And this taxpayer money is being used to shape state and local education without Congressional oversight.
In March 2009, the Department announced a two-part “Race-To-The-Top” competition for states to receive Common Core education funding. States could not get any money unless they signed contracts to adopt the Federal Standards. In March 2010, the “first official public draft” of the Standards (Math and English only) was released. A final draft was released in June, and our State Board of Education immediately applied for funding and adopted Common Core. Education Week reported Rutgers professor Joseph Rosenstein’s observation that: “Deciding so quickly … was irresponsible”. Moreover, our School Board’s Application was not deemed meritorious. Funding was denied. But, Common Core mandates remain.
These facts demonstrate that we the people, and our children, were denied Due Diligence. Due Diligence is “such diligence as a reasonable person under the same circumstances would use.” It is “used most often in connection with the performance of a professional or fiduciary duty.” It was not reasonable under these circumstances for the Board to act without giving notice to its constituents and providing an opportunity to respond. As fiduciaries, the Board had the duty to act in behalf of the public with care, candor and loyalty in fulfilling its obligations. I concur with Professor Rosenstein and conclude that the Board’s actions constitute a breach of their fiduciary duty to do “Due Diligence” in our behalf.
Further, these facts demonstrate that Utah citizens were denied Due Process. The boundaries of Due Process are not fixed. Fundamental to procedural due process is adequate notice prior to the government’s deprivation of one’s life, liberty, or property, and an opportunity to be heard and defend one’s rights. Substantive due process is a limit on the government’s power to affect the above rights. It is a safeguard against government action that is unfair, irrational or arbitrary in advancing a government interest.
The Federal mandates of Common Core dwarf No Child Left Behind mandates. They have the potential to be like Medicaid and ObamaCare with immense un-vetted and unfunded costs to taxpayers. States and their citizens have the Constitutional right to local control. But, the Government requires that Common Core be fully implemented by 2014. Moreover, recent Federal revisions to the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) render student and family data – educational, health and otherwise – collectible by the Federal Government through the P-20W data systems they paid States to create. The State School Board’s denial of due process to citizens has made this possible.
I concur with Mitt Romney’s recent evaluation of Common Core: “I don’t subscribe to the idea of the Federal Government trying to push a Common Core on various states. It’s one thing to put out as a model and let people adopt it as they will, but to financially reward states based upon accepting the Federal Government’s idea of a curriculum, I think, is a mistake. And the reason I say that is that there may come a time when the Government has an agenda that it wants to promote”.
Obama’s “2020 Vision Roadmap” for America’s schools was co-written by his former education advisor, Linda Darling-Hammond. Darling-Hammond is now in charge of content specifications for half the country’s testing under Common Core. Yet, she attacks the use of standardized tests! In Nation Magazine, she compares America’s education system with South African apartheid and proposes that poverty requires the government to guarantee “housing, healthcare, and basic income security” to all. Then she praises nations that centrally control their schools.
At the end of her article, she touts Obama’s grand “2020 Vision Roadmap” (which she helped write) stating: “The Federal government should compel states to review inter- and intra- school resource distribution using established indicators. States that fail to comply would be subject to withdrawal of Federal funds, and the Federal Government would have the right to the direct remedy to correct the problem.”
The citizens of Utah and the United States are in for some spectacular surprises, including federally controlled education and redistribution of State and school district resources during Obama’s second term. I urge Utah’s lawyer legislators to evaluate the State Board’s denial of due diligence and due process to Utah citizens, and to protect taxpayers and students from Obama’s Education policies to be fully implemented by 2014.
I just had to post this comment in a more prominent location because it perfectly illustrates the situation when someone actually takes the time to do their homework on Common Core.
A commenter going by “Anonymous” just posted a comment linking to the Utah State Office of Education’s website where they’ve posted the Complete Resource Guide on the Utah Core Standards, encouraging someone to read the document. Someone did. Here is Tricia’s excellent response.
Thanks, anonymous, for linking to the Common Core Resource Guide. After reading through some of it, it only further solidified my stance against common core.
I found page 24 and 25 particularly horrifying. Talking about the English Language Standards it states, “The effect of implementing standards cannot be researched before they have been implemented. They must be implemented first before we can conduct research on their effectiveness.”
WHAT??? So all kids in the state get to be guinea pigs for the program? Couldn’t we try a small pilot program first? Those who support common core can sign up their children to be the test subjects (but I really wouldn’t recommend it). If the program proves to be successful, then I’d be willing to sign up my children (well, it will be my grandchildren by then, but whatever.)
And then there’s this:
“We, along with other major experts in the reading and literacy field, argue that all students need to be reading more and more informational texts than they currently do. Classroom-based observation research has revealed over the past decade that children read almost no informational texts at all.”
Who are these experts? And why do kids need to read more info text? Where is the proof that this will help them? They read plenty of info texts in math, science, and history. They don’t need to read them in English, as well.
It goes on, “more than 85% of adult reading time is spent reading informational texts. Only 15% of adult reading is literary texts.”
This is proof that MORE ADULTS should be reading MORE LITERARY TEXTS than that STUDENTS should read LESS. And if adults aren’t reading literature, they sure better read it in school or they will never be exposed to it.
But wait. There’s more:
“Our schools have given precious little attention to the reading and learning from informational text. That is precisely the point of the CCS Standards’ increased attention on informational text. Consider for a moment the demands an auto mechanic now has in using diagnostic computer technology to work on your car engine. The manual to be read by today’s auto mechanic is nearly four inches thick of informational text!”
Then let kids read informational text in auto mechanic school. Not English.
Reading info text will only bore them and make them hate reading, not give them a love for great literature.
Literature enriches our lives. It makes us better people. Helps us to think and examine and be aware.
Informational text teaches how to work on a car engine. Not an unimportant skill, but quite limited in its scope and power.
South Dakotan’s Against Common Core recently published this alarming information about National Sexuality Education Standards. I don’t expect Utah to adopt this program by choice anytime soon, but when you accept federal money, with federal strings, you sometimes get federal programs shoved down your throat whether you want them or not. By Utah aligning to Common Core and taking federal money for education, it is entirely feasible that this program written by Planned Parenthood could at some point become a national requirement for such states. You can bet there are those in Common Core circles who are banking on it, for the common good of the children of course.
Here’s a link to the original and the content of it below.
And before you say it is not a part of Common Core, because it is “A Special Publication of the Journal of School Health,” please go to page 6 where it says, “The National Sexuality Education Standards were further informed by the work of the CDC’s Health Education Curriculum Analysis Tool(HECAT)3; existing state and international education standards that include sexual health content; the Guidelines for Comprehensive Sexuality Education: Kindergarten – 12th Grade; and the Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts and Mathematics, recently adopted by most states.” And before you say, “We won’t allow it in our schools. We will go to the school board.” Local control is gone. On page 6, “Specifically, the National Sexuality Education Standards were developed to address the inconsistent implementation of sexuality education nationwide and the limited time allocated to teaching the topic.” The whole idea behind Common Core is to create universal standards.
I wanted to know who would think they know what information was appropriate and at what age my child should learn this “appropriate” information. Here’s what I found out about a few of those on the Advisory Committee. I’ll let you research the rest.
Nora Gelperin, was the recipient of the national 2010 Mary Lee Tatum Award from the Association of Planned Parenthood Leaders in Education! http://answer.rutgers.edu/page/nora_award
Deb Hauser has been with Advocates for Youth for almost 20 years, first as Director of the Support Center for School-based Health Care, then as Executive Vice President. In January 2012, Deb became the organization’s fourth President and Executive Director, representing Advocates with the media, funders and colleagues organizations and speaking nationally and internationally about young people’s rights to honest sexual health information, confidential sexual health services and equitable social and economic opportunities. http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/about-us/advocates-staff
Robert McGarry, EdD Director of Training and Curriculum Development Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN)
Cynthia Lam, Sex, Etc. Teen Editorial Staff Been writing for Sex, Etc since she was 14, she’s now 17.
Then I wanted to know what information these people thought was age-appropriate. Oh my goodness. Do you remember in the movie “Kindergarten Cop”, when the little boy walks up to Arnold Schwarzenegger and says, “Boys have a penis and girls have a vagina.”? I don’t know about you, but I was shocked and found it funny at the same time. I remember thinking, ‘boy, his parents have shared a lot of information with him.’ Parents will no longer have the right to decide what is developmentally and age appropriate for their individual child.
On page 12 it says “By the end of 2nd grade, students should be able to: Use proper names for body parts, including male and female anatomy.”
On page 14 it says: “By the end of 5th grade, students should be able to: Describe male and female reproductive systems including body parts and their functions. Identify medically-accurate information about female and male reproductive anatomy. Define sexual orientation as the romantic attraction of an individual to someone of the same gender or a different gender.”
On page 9 under “Guiding Values and Principles”
“Instruction by qualified sexuality education teachers is essential for student achievement.” Wouldn’t that be the parents? Who decides who is “qualified”? “Students need opportunities to engage in cooperative and active (I underlined those two words) learning strategies, and sufficient time must be allocated for students to practice (I underlined that one too) skills relating to sexuality education.” What does that mean? Something like this?
And I just have to highlight this principle: Students need multiple opportunities and a variety of assessment strategies to determine their achievement of the sexuality education standards and performance. I know this is already in many of our schools. This is sex-education on steroids. You can download your own copy of the standards here.
I have only highlighted a very few of the items I, as a mom, find objectionable. You may not have any issues with the standards, principles and skills that children will be taught as a part of the Common Core Standards. I’m not asking you to agree with me. After all these are only minimum standards. Page 6 – Outline what, based on research and extensive professional expertise, are the minimum, essential content and skills for sexuality education K–12 given student needs, limited teacher preparation and typically available time and resources. I just want you to be aware of the details.
If Common Core is so wonderful, why did they bring it in the back door without legislation? Education we are paying for, without representation.
Check back, as I am researching the companies that are creating curriculum to meet these standards.
Getting caught up in discussions about whether Common Core is “state led” or a federal program seems a fruitless debate of semantics.
What is the danger of a federally controlled education system that makes “state led” sound better? Those who oppose federal control typically oppose a concentration of power that would dictate one set of educational ideals (yes, even standards represent certain values) to the exclusion of others, establishing an intellectual tyranny of sorts.
Whether one sees Common Core as a federal program, or as the product of an extragovernmental cartel of state leaders (aka state-led) and special interests who had no constitutional commission to affect nationwide education policy in the way that they did, the outcome is the same:
Decisions were concentrated into the hands of a select few and the reforms of one ideology were championed (with the help of federal funds) while all other voices were shut out.
In other words, those who argue that this was not an outright federal mandate have a valid point. Common Core is the result of the second scenario, which is even worse than a direct federal mandate (as if No Child Left Behind wasn’t intrusion enough) from our duly elected representatives in Washington D.C.
This process sets an alarming precedent for circumventing our constitutional representative form of government and seems to establish a safe haven for the collusion of public funds and private interests without the traditional oversight established by law at either the federal or the state level.
I question what seems to be a generally accepted notion that Governors and Chief State School Officers have the legal authority to represent the state in making decisions jointly with other states. I see that as the role of Congress.
Common Core was not a “best practice” that was modeled by one state and copied by others. It was a joint initiative that had never been piloted anywhere… an unusual collaboration between the executive branches of State and Federal government and private interests that was brokered by the National Governors Association (NGA) and Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). It was a process that was not openly accountable to “we the people,” that was not subject to open meetings, open records, lobbying restrictions etc.
There is a long history of disagreement over the best way to teach math, or what books and literature are of the most worth. In a free society, this competition of ideas has traditionally been considered a valuable condition that would encourage innovation, preserve liberty, and provide options. When the results of competing ideas and methodologies can be compared, people can make informed decisions and choose for themselves what works best.
Those who comfort themselves with the remaining sliver of local control over curriculum within the confines of the Common Core standards and tests seem strangely willing to trade some of the last vestiges of local control (unlikely to ever be returned once surrendered) to support an untried philosophy of education that is dismissive of the experience and creativity of our best teachers, and of the primary stewardship of parents over their children.
Meanwhile textbooks, summative assessments, prepackaged curriculum and formative assessments grow ever more homogenous as they align to “common” standards, and the benefits of school choice are practically erased.
If this were just about standards that would be one kind of disagreement… but the furor over Common Core is about a fundamental shift in control over education.
This is about how decisions for education, and perhaps even other “state led” initiatives, are governed going forward.
This is about whether those closest to the children and their needs will be marginalized in favor of overgeneralized policy by bureaucrats and educrats.
This is not just about what our kids will learn, but about who gets to decide.
In Utah, State School Board elections work like this, which is essentially taxation without representation. We get taxed to fund this entity but then when we try to run a candidate for office they are eliminated by those in power.
1) Everyone who wants to run for a school board seat files an application.
3) That committee interviews the candidates, eliminates everyone against Common Core, and shrinks the pool down to 3 names from however many there were that wanted to run. If you were eliminated by these unelected individuals, too bad.
4) Those 3 names go to the governor who eliminates 1, and generously gives the public the choice of voting for 1 of those 2 candidates.
5) The public gets 2 “safe and approved” choices to vote for.
(In other elections, you file and your name either goes to a body of elected delegates to vet all the candidates and select one to run for their party, or the public just votes for all the candidates in elections)
“…NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Utah State Board of Education requests the support of the citizens of Utah to insist on proper care and vigilance in the effort to secure and protect the sensitive personal data of students and teachers in Utah’s K-12 public education system, especially in seeking the the resources and legislation necessary to strongly secure and protect the aforementioned data ; and
RESOLVED, that the Utah State Board of Education calls upon the members of the Utah legislature to pass and/or revise such laws as are necessary to strongly secure and protect the sensitive personal data of students and teachers and to work jointly with the Utah State Board of Education to appropriately define the delicate balance of that privacy with the proper transparency and availability of aggregated and non-identifiable data necessary to provide accountability and oversight of Utah’s K-12 public education system.”
Great work by the State School Board on this one. We totally agree that we should strengthen privacy laws. In fact, the most secure way to secure our children’s personally identifiable information is to NOT STORE IT IN A DATABASE. It’s pathetic that the USOE and State Board signed us onto this whole mess with grant and wavier applications and now go running to the legislature (whom they constantly criticize for interfering in education), and ask them to protect them from themselves. HELLO??? Who signed the waivers and applications? The Board President, State Superintendent, and the Governor. The best way to protect this data is to unwind it.
This one contains the usual nonsense about how Common Core had significant public input, and how it was closely reviewed by members of the board before adoption. Both lies shown elsewhere so lets get right to the fun…
“…BE IT RESOLVED that the Utah State Board of Education calls upon the Governor of the State of Utah and the members of the Utah Senate and the Utah House of Representatives 1) to support the goal of career and college ready outcomes for Utah students, 2) to resist the demands calling to “remove Utah from the common core” based on erroneous information, and 3) to collaborate with the State Board of Education in supporting teachers, parents and students during the transition to these new Utah Core Standards.”
The board must be getting pretty desperate to pass such an action. It’s sort of like spitting into the wind though. Our momentum is just beginning to build. We passed 5,000 signatures last night! The more the public learns about Common Core, the less they like it. Yesterday on Twitter there was a national anti-Common Core rally. Here’s how the stats looked between #stopcommoncore and #supportthecore.
Back to the board’s desperation resolution…here’s a few comments.
Item 1) We all support having high schoolers prepared to do anything they want to when they graduate. That’s one of the major reasons we are against Common Core.
“I can tell you that my main objection to Core Standards, and the reason I didn’t sign off on them was that they did not match up to international expectations. They were at least 2 years behind the practices in the high achieving countries by 7th grade, and, as a number of people have observed, only require partial understanding of what would be the content of a normal, solid, course in Algebra I or Geometry. Moreover, they cover very little of the content of Algebra II, and none of any higher level course… They will not help our children match up to the students in the top foreign countries when it comes to being hired to top level jobs.” – Dr. James Milgram, Stanford, the only professional mathematician on the Common Core validation committee
“The standards which I have analyzed in detail many times over, do not signify readiness or authentic college level work, at best they point to readiness for a high school diploma.” – Dr. Sandra Stotsky, ELA validation committee member, former Asst. Superintendent of MA, helping MA design their top rated standards that put them on par with international high achievers
Item 2) We also fully support not removing Utah from Common Core based on erroneous information. All the reasons we state for exiting Common Core are factual, and therefore, should be highly considered by government officials. Initial ignorance on the part of state school board members was forgivable. They hadn’t done their homework and were overly trusting of USOE personnel who told them “we have to have this signed by Monday or we’ll lose funding.” However, now that so much has been made public, their continued loyalty to this agenda brings their own honesty into question. In fact, their own defense of Common Core has become comical with Joel Coleman declaring on his blog that people against Common Core don’t care about standards in education, and Dixie Allen telling Uintah parents that Common Core isn’t costing the state anything. Like anyone but Common Core zombies would believe that nonsense. Desperate and pathetic.
Item 3) The state board wants all elected officials to fall in line and collaborate with them in transitioning teachers, parents, and students to a program designed from inception to standardize children so it’s easier to find the exact formula that makes for smart kids, behavioral test them, and store that data in the world’s most secure longitudinal database. Oh wait, I guess “most secure” would be erroneous so don’t base your decision off those words.
Utah’s State School Board elections perfectly illustrate taxation without representation, and their duty to serve the public interest is education without representation. Who is their customer? Parents, not the State Office of Education, and not the Governor. Listen to your customers State Board, or your customers will go away. That’s business 101.
If you want to solve this problem, demand that people who want to run for school board are allowed to. No secret handshakes in back rooms anymore that prevent the public from electing the best candidate who meets their desires for education. An elected body that basically has general control of half of Utah’s budget must also be looked at closely because the public will never whittle down 24 candidates to the best 2 to run against each other. As such, it is necessary that elections for such a major fiscally-responsible position be made partisan. There is no such thing as a non-partisan position or race. Look at what happened to Nicole-Toomey Davis when she ran against Kim Burningham for a state school board seat. These people are over a massive multi-billion-dollar budget which draws power and influence like nothing else. Candidates should declare a party affiliation they will run under and let locally elected delegates from their party ask the tough questions and then vote on the best candidate. The best candidates will then square off in a general election and the public will finally have their voice heard on the state school board (and the same should happen for district school board races as well).
If you agree, please contact your legislators today and ask them to give Utah partisan school board races so the public gets the best candidates and not the ones with the most power brokers backing them.
Uh-oh, don’t look now Utah, but our $39 million contract with AIR (http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765628026/Utah-Common-Core-testing-fraught-with-flaws.html) to do computer adaptive testing on our students just hit a snag. In spite of the fact the USOE told the legislature that AIR was the ONLY VENDOR FULLY PREPARED to handle the computer adaptive testing for Utah schools, it appears that assessment was short-lived and shortsighted.
From the Pioneer Press Twin Cities news comes this article, “Computer crash derails math assessment exams for Minnesota students.”
Thousands of students across Minnesota could not take the online state math assessment they spent much of the school year preparing for because of a technology failure Tuesday, April 16.
A computer problem at testing contractor American Institutes of Research, or AIR, prevented students from beginning or completing the Minnesota Comprehensive Assessments online, said Charlene Briner, chief of staff for the Minnesota Department of Education.
“It is unfortunate, and it is unacceptable to us,” said Briner, who said the problem was with AIR, the state’s vendor, and not “school infrastructure.”
…
Jon Cohen, director of assessment for AIR, said servers that process tests experienced two “slowdowns” Tuesday morning as 15,000 students tried to access the system.
…
Evelyn Belton-Kocher, director of testing, research and assessment for St. Paul, said the difficulties are an example of online testing’s challenges.
“If you don’t have a highly-reliable system, you put a lot more stress on your most vulnerable kids,” Belton-Kocher said. “It’s not a level playing field.”
Robert Schaeffer, spokesman for the National Center for Fair and Open Testing, said the problems Minnesota students and teachers experienced are common when states try to administer standardized test online on a large scale. States have seen repeated problems with programming, infrastructure and the capacity of systems used to administer the tests.
“The assumption is the technology is infallible,” Shaeffer said, adding that contractors make performance promises they can’t keep. “You shouldn’t contract based on promises. You should contract, especially with taxpayer money, based on performance.”
Lets see…15,000 students access the assessments and crash the servers. I think I have to agree with Shaeffer. Utah shouldn’t contract based on promises but based on performance.
If you don’t know much about AIR, they are the official partner of the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium which legislators helped pressure the state school board and USOE to drop all affiliations with. If you don’t know much about AIR, please check out these two articles.
This article by Tiffany Mouritsen exposes the extreme agenda that AIR supports and has written extensively about on their website including social justice and LGBT. Why can’t Utah find an assessment partner to support that doesn’t spend money on tearing down the moral fabric of society that we value?
We received this report yesterday from someone who attended the Uintah school district meeting last week where USOE representatives spoke about AIR/SAGE testing. This parent requested anonymity. If you are new to this and don’t know what AIR/SAGE is, please read this report on AIR/SAGE by Alpine School District board member Brian Halladay.
******
I attended the meeting held by Uintah School District last week.
The meeting appeared to be a training on the new assessments for Common Core that will cost $30 million. The guy turned his back on the room and spoke quietly when he said ‘$30 mil’, so I’m not sure I heard him correctly. He was more than happy to face the room and speak loudly about how great these assessments will be and how very much we need them–in his opinion. (Note-his job is dependent on him holding to that opinion.)
A little more than halfway through the meeting, he finally allowed questions. He would NOT allow questions before that. When question time came, it was very clear that the majority of the people in the room were unhappy parents, not educators there for his training. With a great deal of pressure from parents, it was decided that some common core questions would be answered by Dixie Allen of the state school board.
All individuals interested in common core questions being answered were invited to get up and move to a smaller room to talk with Dixie. By the time everyone had gathered in the smaller room, common core was on a screen at the front of the room and Dixie was prepared to give a presentation. Parents tried to ask questions and Dixie tried to give a presentation.
When it became clear that Dixie’s intent was to deliver a Common Core ‘sale’, one parent specifically requested that questions be answered first and the presentation be given second because people were obviously wanting their questions answered now. Dixie said no, but eventually had to give in because the questions wouldn’t quit coming. We didn’t have to watch or listen to a big presentation from Dixie, but we did have to listen to her state several times that common core standards are higher (to which one parent consistently replied ‘no, they’re not’ every time). She also told the parent in the room who knew the most about Common Core that she (Dixie) didn’t want that mom asking anymore questions because the mom gave comments, informing other parents of the details so Dixie could not shut them down completely. Obviously, Dixie is frightened of the truth getting out.
Dixie also denied being the homeschool teacher for 2 of her grandchildren in her home. (I think the count was 2.) She later backtracked on that one and admitted that she teaches one grandchild who is in 9th grade right now and homeschooled because of bullying. (A difficult to fully believe claim because the junior high principal here is quite strict and everyone else says this principal put an end to bullying in that school when she was first put in as principal, long enough ago that bullying in that school would have ended by the time Dixie’s grandchild would have entered the jr. high.)
Dixie also repeatedly stated that Utah must do Common Core because otherwise we cannot buy curriculum to match our core because we don’t spend enough money on education and therefore the curricula vendors don’t cater to us. No one in the room agreed with her on needing more money, but she made this claim repeatedly. Then when the question “How much will these new curricula materials to match common core cost us?” was asked, the answer was “Nothing, we’re making our own.”
None of the parents in the room said anything, but note that the argument that we need to do common core so we can buy materials to match our core falls when you consider that we’re not buying the materials!
In short, no one in the meeting was convinced that common core was a good idea. Parents talked afterwards, exchanging their contact info and more information on common core. One parent had watched a program on the miserable failure of common core in Michigan and was there with her notes in hand, asking questions and providing details of how bad things are in Michigan. Dixie tried very hard, but unsuccessfully, to refute the points this good mom made throughout the meeting. Another mom mentioned that history has proven how very dangerous a national curriculum can be, but many people in the room are unaware of that and just thought she’s a little paranoid.
I left the meeting thinking that Dixie is either completely ignorant of the facts surrounding common core or she is an outright liar. I spoke with some people who know her personally the next day and they told me that she just truly believes in big government, so she wouldn’t even be able to see the facts. It was interesting to watch her at the meeting. Dixie is an elected representative of the people, but you couldn’t tell. Elected representatives should listen to the people, treat them respectfully, and do as the people want. Dixie did none of that. As an elected representative of the people, she ARGUED with them and spoke condescendingly when they didn’t understand education lingo. It was very sad.
Dixie did state that Utah might not adopt the science part of common core because of pressure from the ‘right wing’ in the state. She also said that Utah might try to vary from common core by more than the 15% allowed, but there will be no attempt to get out of common core.
Sadly, the powers that be cannot admit they’ve made a mistake and are completely disrespectful to the people who gave them power and pay the taxes that support them and their decisions.
*****
That ends the report but I wanted to note that I personally had 2 state school board members tell me last year that Utah would never adopt the Common Core science or social studies standards. Teacher and former state representative David Cox spoke with State Superintendent Martel Menlove a month ago and Dr. Menlove told him that Utah would not adopt the Common Core social studies standards. Yet just a week ago we learned that Utah is participating in the CREATION of those social studies standards. You can express your displeasure with the state school board by emailing them at Board@schools.utah.gov. It’s time for partisan school board elections where candidates aren’t carefully selected by a committee and then filtered by the governor.
