Monthly Archives: February 2014

News

Kentucky’s Common Core Lawsuit

Leave a comment

Updated: This lawsuit has been dismissed.

http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2014/01/27/first-common-core-lawsuit-tossed-out

**********************

I was unaware of this lawsuit when I posted the Utah lawsuit yesterday. Thanks to Truth in American Education for posting this.

http://truthinamericaneducation.com/common-core-state-standards/kentucky-parent-files-common-core-lawsuit/

Kentucky-FlagDavid Adams, a parent from Nicholasville, KY, filed a lawsuit against the Governor Steve Beshear, Senate President Robert Stivers, the Kentucky Board of Education, Council on Postsecondary Education and Lawrence County Board of Education for “for declaratory and injunctive relief relating to Defendants’ acceptance of Common Core State Standards.”

This is the first lawsuit related to the Common Core State Standards that I am aware of.

Here is the text of the complaint:

Plaintiff, David Adams, for his Complaint against Defendants, the Commonwealth of Kentucky, acting through the Office of the Governor (“Governor”), and Governor Steve Beshear, in his official capacity as Governor of the Commonwealth, Senate President Robert Stivers, in his official capacity as President of the Senate, Roger L. Marcum, in his official capacity as Chairman of the Kentucky Board of Education, Robert L. King, in his official capacity as President of the Council on Postsecondary Education and Cassandra Webb, in her official capacity as chairwoman of the Education Professional Standards Board respectfully states as follows:

I. NATURE OF ACTION
1.  This is a civil action for declaratory and injunctive relief relating to Defendants’ acceptance of Common Core State Standards. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief in the form of a court order reversing Defendants’ illegal acceptance of Common Core State Standards and forbidding any continued action relating to same until such time as specific legislative approval is granted.

2.  Time is of the essence in resolving this issue because substantial public resources have been and are currently being devoted to implementation of Common Core despite a clear constitutional mandate intended to provide for an efficient system of common schools. Continued delay in limiting the state officials’ activities in this matter to within the scope of Kentucky law and the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Kentucky sets a terrible precedent for ignoring constitutional  limits on executive and legislative branch authority to protect Kentuckians’ rights to seek and pursue their safety and happiness as explicitly guaranteed by the Kentucky Constitution.

3.  The judicial branch of the Commonwealth of Kentucky is the only remaining venue for redress available to Plaintiff.

4.  As a result of the actions of Defendants, Plaintiff respectfully seeks a temporary and permanent injunction against Defendants’ continued implementation of Common Core until such time as the General Assembly provides appropriate legislation to restore constitutionally mandated efficiency to the Commonwealth’s system of common schools.

II.  THE PARTIES

5.  David Adams is a taxpayer and citizen of the Commonwealth of Kentucky and parent of two students in Jessamine County Schools.

6. Governor Steve Beshear is sued in his official capacity as Governor of the Commonwealth of Kentucky.

7. Senate President Robert Stivers is sued in his official capacity as Senate President of the Commonwealth of Kentucky and a member of the Executive Branch of government pursuant to Section 85 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Kentucky.

8. Roger L. Marcum is sued in his official capacity as Chairman of the Kentucky Board of Education.

9. Robert L. King is sued in his official capacity as President of the Kentucky Council on Postsecondary Education.

10. Cassandra Webb is sued in her official capacity as Chairwoman of the Education Professional Standards Board.

III. JURISDICTION

11. Jurisdiction is proper pursuant to KRS 418.040 and Kentucky Constitution Section 112 (5).

IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS AND BACKGROUND
A. Common Core State Standards
12. On February 10, 2010, Defendants announced acceptance of Common Core State Standards despite the fact the standards had not yet been written. Subsequent obligations of the Commonwealth related to Common Core could not be known then and still cannot in order to reasonably determine the efficacy for their implementation.

  13. The Constitution of the Commonwealth, in Section 183, places responsibility for providing an efficient system of common schools upon the legislature. The Kentucky Supreme Court clarified this to mean “common schools shall be monitored by the General Assembly to assure they are operated without waste, duplication, mismanagement or political influence.” Rose v. Council for Better Education, Inc. (Ky. 1989) 790 S.W.2d 186. By failing to intervene when Defendants obligated Kentuckians to unspecified mandates, duties, responsibilities and costs related to Common Core, the General Assembly violated Section 183.

V. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

14. Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief pursuant to KRS 418.040. Plaintiff seeks a judicial determination of the rights and duties of the parties with regard to an actual controversy arising out of Defendants’ acceptance of Common Core State Standards without sufficient knowledge or understanding of the costs of such action in violation of state law.

15. David Adams seeks injunctive relief relating to Defendants’ illegal acceptance and implementation of Common Core State Standards, namely reversal of such acceptance and implementation until such time as the General Assembly grants approval of same by appropriate legislation.

VI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief as follows:
1. Plaintiff requests the court enter a judgment declaring the legislature erred in failing to prevent acceptance and implementation of Common Core State Standards by Defendants and that such acceptance must be rescinded and that such implementation must cease and be reversed until such time as the General Assembly makes a determination by appropriate legislation specifically regarding efficiency in the Commonwealth’s system of common schools pertaining to standards, curriculum, best practices and testing.

News

Senators Introduce Resolution Denouncing Common Core Coercion

Leave a comment

On Senator Mike Lee’s website we find this awesome news about a resolution denouncing the Obama administrations coercion of states using Common Core.

http://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=19eb6b2b-762e-4945-8462-a089fc08c81c

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) will introduce a resolution strongly denouncing the Obama Administration’s coercion of states into adopting Common Core State Standards by conferring preferences in federal grants and flexibility waivers.

The resolution is co-sponsored by Senators Tim Scott (R-South Carolina), Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Mike Lee (R-Utah), Ted Cruz (R-Texas), James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma), Thad Cochran (R-Mississippi), Roger Wicker (R-Mississippi), and Mike Enzi (R-Wyoming).

“The Obama Administration has effectively bribed and coerced states into adopting Common Core,” said Graham.  “Blanket education standards should not be a prerequisite for federal funding.  In order to have a competitive application for some federal grants and flexibility waivers, states have to adopt Common Core.  This is simply not the way the Obama Administration should be handling education policy. Our resolution affirms that education belongs in the hands of our parents, local officials and states.”

“It is crucial that the money being spent on education in Oklahoma be controlled by Oklahomans who are familiar with the needs of our schools and students,” said Inhofe. “This is why I am proud to join Senator Graham in introducing a resolution that enforces vital education practices of leaving the decisions of children’s educational needs to the state and the parents.

“Educational decisions are best made by parents and teachers – not bureaucrats in Washington,” said Scott.  “While Common Core started out as a state-led initiative, the federal government unfortunately decided to use carrots and sticks to coerce states into adopting national standards and assessments. That is simply the wrong choice for our kids.”

“Common Core is another example of Washington trying to control all aspects of Americans’ lives, including the education of our children,” said Cruz.  “We should not allow the federal government to dictate what our children learn; rather, parents, through their teachers, local schools and state systems, should be able to direct the education of their children.”

“Common Core has become polluted with Federal guidelines and mandates that interfere with the ability of parents, teachers and principals to deliver the education our children deserve,” said Lee.  “Rather than increasing coercion, we should be demanding that further interference by the U.S. Department of Education with respect to state decisions on academic content standards be eliminated.”

“Decisions about what content students should be taught have enormous consequences for children and so should be made as close as possible to the affected parents and students,” said Grassley.  “Federal interference in this area disrupts the direct line of accountability between parents and those making decisions about their children’s education.  It also takes away needed flexibility from state education leaders to make changes as they learn more about what works and what does not.”

“This Administration favors a national school board approach to education and likes to ignore individual states’ decisions,” said Enzi. “It uses ‘free’ money as the carrot to dangle in front of the states. In effect it is trying to force states into accepting a one-size-fits-all approach. This coercion with Common Core is another example of the federal government trampling on states’ rights and is the wrong approach to fixing our education system in this country.”

The major provisions of the resolution affirm:

  • Education belongs in the hands of parents, local education officials, and states.
  • The federal government should not coerce states into adopting common education standards.
  • No future application process for any federal grant funds or waivers should award additional points, or provide any preference, for the adoption of Common Core.

FACT SHEET

Purpose of the Resolution:

  • Strongly denounces President Obama’s coercion of states into adopting Common Core by conferring preferences in federal grants and flexibility waivers.
  • Strongly supports the restoration and protection of state authority and flexibility in establishing and defining challenging student academic standards and assessments.

What the Resolution States:

  • Education belongs in the hands of parents, local education officials, and states.
  • The federal government should not coerce states into adopting common education standards.
  • No application process for any federal grant funds or waivers should award additional points, or provide any preference, for the adoption of Common Core.
  • The link between adoption of common education standards and federal funds will result in increased federal control over education.
  • The resolution does not retract any federal funds or waivers already issued to states.
  • The resolution does not evaluate the content of the Common Core standards already developed and adopted by states.

 

Resolution Denouncing the President’s Coercion of States into Adopting Common Core State Standards

News

First Lawsuit Related to Common Core

19 Comments

This is, to my knowledge, the first lawsuit that involves Common Core as a participant. In this instance a child in Alpine School District who is very bright and academically advanced, was prevented from advancing to his appropriate skill level and has been psychologically damaged as a result of the public education system’s insistence on pounding square pegs into round holes to make all children common. Common Core hurts children both at the upper and lower end of the learning spectrum by forcing them to advance at the pace of the group. It is true conveyor belt education in the worst possible way. In speaking with Dr. Gary Thompson (this family’s psychologist) and Ed Flint (their attorney), about their 45-page petition filed with the court, Common Core’s top down, one-size-fits-all approach to education is a firm part of the educational system that prevents gifted and special needs children from getting the educational experience they need. This is precisely what has happened in this case. Although the petition never mentions “Common Core” by name, Dr. Thompson explained that it absolutely plays a part in how the system prevented this child from advancing to an appropriate skill level since he was far beyond the course work being presented to him.

To protect the family’s identity, they will go by Mr. and Mrs. T below, and their child, his teacher, and school are unnamed. Comments by me are in italics below. There is far too much to include in this post so I have included highlights from the petition, but cannot tell the whole story.

The petition contains:

  1. Allegations of sustained emotional abuse towards mother and 11-year old son.
  2. Allegations of retaliation for exercising parental right of participation in Public School
  3. Allegations of retaliation for utilizing professional help linked to “Anti-Common Core” advocacy.
  4. Allegations of unethical and invalid use of psychological testing to conform to predetermined outcome.
  5. Allegations of ignoring parent’s desperate pleas for assistance for son.
  6. Allegation of callous attitude towards parents as exhibited in 50 pages of “obtained” Alpine District inter-office/district emails.
  7. Forwarding files/petition and evidence to Utah Attorney General’s Office for investigation.
  8. Civil Suit for Tort damages pending.
  9. Obtained District Email Thread over past 8 months.
  10. Allegations that Alpine School District violated FERPA by losing this child’s entire cumulative file and failed to notify the parents.

The below items appear in the actual petition except where noted. The numbers below are reordered for this post.

1. “Child is the son of Petitioners Mr. & Mrs. T, currently residing at ______., ______, Utah, where child is an advanced gifted student at ______ school, assigned to the 7th Grade…..”

2. “Within 30-45 days of child’s new assignment to Mrs. _____’s classroom, the parents respectfully and professionally advised, in writing, child’s teachers and counselors of serious concerns with his behavior, attitude and apparent boredom with the schoolwork he was assigned. No attempts were made to determine whether child might have developed an emotional disability that might be affecting him, as required by Child Find.  20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(3)(A). (Exhibit P2, Emails from Mrs. T to teacher dated January 27, 2013 and teacher’s response dated 1/29/13)….”

3. “Problems and contention quickly arose with teacher.  Mrs. T and teacher kept in regular contact through email, and although teacher engaged in some unprofessional name calling (Referring to child as “The goof” (see Exhibit P3, Email dated March 22, 2013) and assumptions of laziness based on failure to turn in assignments, there was no attempt to seek testing or evaluation of child to determine if there was a learning disability or mental health issue that might be affecting him, as required by “Child Find………”

(Oak Note: Later in the petition I found the disturbing email the teacher actual wrote (in part) to Mrs. T referencing her child:  “The goof either did not do or can’t find the homework I gave him to do last night. Nothing. Aargh…Just letting your know.”)

4. The dialogue continues:  “January 29: Email to teacher.  My first concerns that child was not doing well in school.  In the email I am sending is my original email, her response, and my reply back.  February 4: Email & Subsequent meeting with teacher:  Child missed the deadline of a major project.  She starts saying things I feel were a personal attack against child, “He’ll learn, eventually, to look up at the board and understand that the things up there actually apply to him.”  In this email she states sometime soon she will give him phone numbers of classmates to ask questions. She has a rule in her classroom kids are not allowed to ask parents for help, only peers.

5. Petitioners sought out tutoring from the school to help child with Math as he was not turning in assignments and grades were slipping. The Tutor worked with child a few sessions but told Petitioners that child had no deficits. Teacher asked that child seek assistance from his classmates rather than a paid tutor.

6. A long string emails between the parents and the school highlight the extreme concern the parents had about their son’s growing and observable anxiety, sensory, and depressive symptoms, and the school’s increasing contempt with the parents for questioning their contentions that “nothing was wrong” with child.  Email communications between the administration, teachers and special education staff detail the shocking arrogance of a public school administration dead set on convincing the parents that “nothing was wrong” with their son.

7. As child’s symptoms and behaviors became more frequent and severe, Petitioner Mrs. T. attempted to solicit assistance from school Vice Principal, Mr.____, and recalls this interaction, “November 5- The night before child had his worst and longest meltdown.  He was kicking, screaming, and throwing things for 4 long, horrific hours.  He had a very hard time waking up the next day from pure exhaustion and I brought him to school late.  I walked into Mr. VP’s office and told him child was “in crisis”.  I used those words exactly I explained the situation.  I told him that child was diagnosed with Asperger’s disorder, that he was not challenged at school and that it was causing problems at home.  I told Mr. VP I needed to get an IEP or 504.  He told me child would not qualify for either one because he has good grades and is ahead of his grade, not behind.  He told me we were lucky that child was so smart, but he would check with the district and let me know what resources they have and he would get back with me that day.  He took down my number and never called.  From this meeting I had no idea of child’s rights to be considered for an IEP or 504.”

8. Mrs. T. persisted with an email on about November 6, 2013 where she checked back with Mr. VP. He responded and said he was waiting to talk with Mrs.____ the “Gifted & Talented” Coordinator, about our situation.  He said we could request a 504 (not an IEP because he wouldn’t qualify) but the chances were slim he would get one; despite being rebuffed, Mrs. T decided to be proactive and contact the G&T coordinator herself, anticipating that surely a gifted and talented specialist would understand her child.

9. Petitioner Mrs. T attempted to solicit any help or intervention on behalf of child by visiting with G&T coordinator of Alpine District on about November 18, 2014.  She describes that meeting, “November 18- My meeting with Mrs. G&T did not go well.  As soon as I walked into her office I could tell she had something to prove to me.  I told her my son had Asperger’s and was suffering from things such as being able to ask teachers for help.  She immediately stopped me and told me that was something he was just going to have to “work on”.  So I told her he was not challenged and was not learning anything.  She became defensive to that and pulled up his ALL testing scores on her computer.  She read his scores to me and told me clearly he was not the smartest kid in school.  I told her about his meltdowns at home.  She replied that she spoke with his teachers at school and he was the model student.  She looked at me and told me there was a disconnect between home and school, so the behavior could not be coming from school.  I became tearful and told her this meeting was a waste of time because I could tell she made up her mind before I walked in.  She was not willing to help me.  She told me she too has a smart son and karate helps him, so I could try karate with child.  I asked her for community resources for gifted and talented or Asperger’s and she said she didn’t know of any.  I cried on the way home- again a dead end while I watched my child suffer more and more each day.”

(Oak summary: At this point the parents seek professional help from Dr. Gary Thompson. The child’s personal file is found to be empty and missing years of history that might help piece together what’s happening with the child. Dr. Thompson travels to the child’s former school district seeking records which they had agreed to provide, but upon arrival (after flight) Alpine School District had contacted the school and somehow convinced the school district to rescind their prior approval. Various tests are now performed by the school on the child to make determinations about his psychological issue.)

10. “On ‘the record’ (the entire IEP Determination meeting was digitally recorded, in open view of all attendees, and after advance written notice of intent to so record), Dr. Thompson summarily informed the entire school team that in his experience of attending close to 500 IEP meetings, he has never seen the amount of unethical, illegal and harmful behavior by a group of public school educators in his entire career. ……“

11. “Taking into account the totality of the Petitioner’s experiences, written documentation via emails to the Petitioner’s spanning over a year, apparent violations of “Child Find’ obligations by the District, callous inter-office emails between the school staff and Alpine District Administrators, the inclusion of invalid “testing” materials into the decision making process despite multiple and specific formal objections by the Petitioner’s Advocate regarding multiple serious ethical errors and practices associated with testing, submission of emotional “testing” results from the school that indicated that child displayed absolutely “perfect” mental health,  the Petitioners and Advocate Dr. Gary Thompson believe that this “decision” was made prior to the meeting with Petitioners, and the decision was merely relayed to Petitioners at the meeting……”

12. “These actions resulted in multiple and repeated violations to the educational and civil rights of child, and ultimately has resulted in a denial of FAPE (“Free and Appropriate Public School Education). Petitioners will prove via documentation, expert testimony from a pediatric neuro-psychologist, peer reviewed research in child clinical psychology, email exchanges between the District and the Petitioners, copies of  email communications between school and Alpine District, and transcripts from the IEP meeting that Alpine District knowingly conspired to deprive child from obtaining special education services afforded under the 2004 IDEA, which resulted in a blatant and dangerous denial of FAPE…….”

13. “The school team forwarded what they purported to be, all assessment results to the child’s family on Friday, January 24, 2014.  A review of their assessment showed that absolutely no valid testing or inquiries into child confirmed anxiety and depressive issues were part of the assessment performed by the school Special Education Team.  This dangerous pattern of conforming evaluation protocols and results to preconceived, “one-size-fits-all” evaluation procedures not only resulted in a final evaluation that was invalid, unscientific and not comprehensive in nature, it was the final piece of conclusive evidence that joined a long line of factual events, evidence and behaviors which led the Petitioners and an experienced Education Advocate to conclude that Alpine District performed a fraudulent, unethical and ultimately dangerous evaluation of child…..”

14. The violations by school and Alpine District were neither minor, nor has child “reached the maximum of his education potential.”  The violations were blatant and egregious in nature, which resulted in significant emotional harm to both the mother and child in this action.

15. “Given the totality of the record, counsel for the Petitioners, licensed doctoral level clinicians and advocates for the Petitioners, and the Petitioners themselves are shocked at the level of apparent disconnect and callousness exhibited by Alpine School District towards child.  Petitioners allege that Alpine School District retaliated against the Petitioners for exercising their rights of parental choice and involvement in their child’s public education experience, and expressed contempt after the Petitioners retained the services of Early Life Child Psychology & Education Center to assist them with obtaining relief for their wonderfully complex, quirky and gifted child.”

Reference

Say No to State Preschool Programs

4 Comments

Those searching for information on reasons to oppose preschool programs funded by the state or private entities will be interested in the information below. Of particular interest is Clinical Mental Health Counselor Joan Landes’ letter to representatives which is below the core information.

“The home is the first and most effective place to learn the lessons of life: truth, honor, virtue, self control, the value of education, honest work, and the purpose and privilege of life.  Nothing can take the place of home in rearing and teaching children, and no other success can compensate for failure in the home.”  – David O McKay.

There are 2 bills this session relating to “early education” or preschool.

1) HB 96 sponsored by Rep. Greg Hughes titled Utah School Readiness Initiative.

Bill link: http://le.utah..gov/~2014/bills/static/HB0096.html

2) SB 42 sponsored by Sen. Aaron Osmond titled Early Childhood Education.

Bill link: http://le.utah.gov/~2014/bills/static/SB0042.html

Reasons to Oppose:

1) The bill calls for schools to collect longitudinal data on children which fits perfectly into the Common Core P20W database Utah has created. (P20W is preschool through grade 20 and into the workforce for tracking everyone)

84          (4) “Eligible LEA” means an LEA that has a data system capacity to collect
85      longitudinal academic outcome data, including special education use by student, by identifying
86      each student with a statewide unique student identifier.

2) I totally oppose all preschool bills on a matter of principle since we operate under a compulsory education system. Establishing a preschool program for one class (disadvantaged children) will inevitably lead to mandates for other children and additional funding needs.

3) Head Start, the comprehensive preschool program started in 1965, went 45 years and spent $166 billion and was proven a complete failure. Lets not repeat history.

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/head-start-tragic-waste-money

4) The Obama administration plan is to start educating children at birth. This is the first step on that path.

“The Obama administration has proposed new investments that will establish a continuum of high-quality early learning for children beginning at birth and continuing to age five.”

http://www.ed.gov/early-learning

5) The feds are incentivizing data collection and testing for small children and invasive home visits.

http://truthinamericaneducation.com/uncategorized/education-liberty-watch-highlights-federal-pre-k-takeover/

6) The Institute of Marriage and Family has shown that early education does NOT benefit children and they should actually begin school later rather than earlier.

http://www.imfcanada.org/issues/nurturing-children-why-early-learning-does-not-help

http://www.moorefoundation.com/article/48/about-moore-home-schooling/moore-foundation/articles/when-education-becomes-abuse

*****************

Dear Representative,

Since time is very short I can’t craft individual letters, but I trust you will be interested in the perspective of a Clinical Mental Health Counselor on this issue:

We need to oppose the institutionalization of ever younger children for many reasons:

Research: The last 20 years of research on attachment of youngsters to primary caregivers shows that early maternal deprivation and high stress situations (such as separation anxiety) actually results in epigenetic changes to young brains. What changes? It creates a dearth of GR receptors which makes the uptake of cortisol and other “stress hormones” much less effective over a lifetime. What does this mean? These kids are much more easily upset and difficult to soothe because the GR receptors aren’t present in large enough quantities to break down the cortisol. This is a recipe for more mental health problems, learning problems and problems with violence. The way to solve parental neglect is to educate and inform the PARENTS, not remove little children from their mommies.

Research: Every major study has found that early childhood education lacks enduring value cognitively and any gains which are made pretty much dissipate by the 3rd grade. Head Start has been a dismal failure on every major indicator and has cost the nation billions to learn this hard lesson.

Research: Every theory of child development and generations of research show that the most important tasks of the preschool years is NOT the accumulation of facts and “book knowledge”. The child absolutely must have a foundation of trust in her primary caregiver (most often Mom), and autonomy (not being constrained by a group), and initiative (the ability to exert power in an environment– not being dictated by a “program”). Without successfully mastering these tasks, the ability to master the academic and work tasks in school is seriously compromised.

Research: Children (especially young children) need to be treated as individuals by caring adults who advocate for them. Massing children into groups to be programmed into pre-planned “lessons” and activities denies these children the individual caring and attention they require for healthy development. Caring for many young children is inherently stressful and even if the state could afford a 2-1 student-teacher ratio, a paid caretaker can never replace the inherent love of a parent, grandparent or family member. Preschool is a poor substitute for parenting.

Please feel confident in knowing that the best course for Utah’s young children is to stay in the primary care of Mom, Dad or extended family. If resources are to be spent, we should concentrate on teaching and training the parents to be the kind of Mom or Dad they know they can be. With that high leverage activity, we improve the lives of at least 2 people (Mom and child) or more rather than focusing just on one individual

Thank-you for understanding the inherent risks and harms of early childhood relational disruption commonly called “Early Child Education.”

Joan R. Landes, ACMHC

Concerns

Parent math complaints and opting out of SAGE

6 Comments

Here’s a few comments from the UACC Facebook page. Unfortunately, Utah’s infatuation with constructivist math isn’t going to stop till Common Core is replaced with quality math standards.

Don’t miss the success story of one parent using Alpine’s opt out form in her own school district. You have the right as a parent to opt your child out of the SAGE tests. Nobody can force your child to take those tests…except if you sign a contract to do it. Watch out for some charters who made parents sign on that their children will take the exams so the school won’t risk losing funding. Big brother wants your data, or else you don’t get the feds’ money.

Rebecca L. writes:

Here’s a real life anecdote:
My second grader missed almost half of his double digit addition problems on several consecutive math assignments. I sat down with him and had him do a problem for me that he missed: 37 + 26. Rather than efficiently do the problem, he rewrote it as 30+20, added those, and added 7+9 (an error in rewriting). Then he added those two sums to get his final (wrong) answer. THIS IS INSANITY. Will he do the same method for an eight digit addition problem? If they won’t use the common core math to solve multi digit problems, why are they wasting time teaching this method?

The best part is, I showed him in ten seconds how to “carry”. It is so simple to explain: This is the tens column, put the tens part of the number in the tens column. The look on his face was priceless when he realized how quickly he could solve addition problems without so many extra steps. He finished both assignments quickly and I am now confident in his ability to add. I had him add two six digit numbers and- he got it right! The first time! Without “creating” five additional steps to solve the problem.

It is frustrating to me to add unnecessary steps and make math unnecessarily tedious. It’s a fun subject! Let’s focus on mastery of a subject, rather than just focusing on “attempting” to find a solution to a math problem.

 

Pam W. writes:

I was appalled when I saw my 7th grade granddaughter’s math book (Common Core identified) at the beginning of the year and saw that they still had these kids drawing pictures — circles or x’s or whatever — to solve problems. We need to go back to math taught the traditional way.

 

Cathy D. writes:

If possible, please send me a resource site to help assist me in how to be able to refuse the math and reading common core that is being forced upon my son along with his other subjects. They are impossible to master! My son already struggles due to the lack of educating due to no child left behind! There is so much he has not learned and is in the 7th grade. But much he has also retained and mastered with the basic academic subjects. Under extreme concern for his education, I placed him in the K-12 homeschool program. They have also implemented the Common Core expecting my son to pass those lessons/tests for a student they also placed in the special ed program years ago. It is a daily fear my son will never be able to reach the learning and education required to maintain a job or career. I find it hard to assist and help as his learning coach when I myself can’t understand the work or assignment. Please tell me what I can do to get my son the education he deserves. Thank you, Ms. D

(For those of you in a similar situation to Cathy, you can consider dual-enrollment and teach your child at home with quality materials you understand and can teach. You can also get help at learning centers that thrive off curriculum that is not aligned to Common Core. Sylvan, Mathnasium, and others are places to check.)

 

Patricia J. writes:

I thought I’d share a positive today: We did our taxes last night (NOT the positive part!), and the lady who does our taxes every year also teaches Jr. High math (all grades) in the Weber School District. She hates CC, and mentioned that Utah is the only state NOT integrated with other states, and that leaves us without textbooks because no publisher wants to write math books for just Utah, and that makes CC even MORE difficult to teach. I told her that Alpine just released an opt-out form for SAGE, and she perked up. She said “I’m in charge of SAGE for my school, and I haven’t heard this.” I told her I copied the sentence from Alpine’s opt-out form letter and made my own for my 3 children (in K, 4th and 8th grades). She looked surprised and said, “I didn’t know you could do that!” I told her that I didn’t know if it was an option in our District but I did it anyway and my 8th grader’s VP called to ask only whether I wanted to pick her up during testing or go to an office to do work while others tested, no fuss. She said, “I need that form! I just might have to hand these out to my students!” I told her where to look on your website, and she said she would definitely be using it. I told her that my 8th grader’s VP told me that 95% of their students have to take SAGE testing in order to get federal funding, so if we can JUST get 6% to opt out, we’d make a HUGE difference! She said she would start telling parents she knew that opting out was an option, because most don’t even know that it can be done! We need to just make up a general opt-out form for SAGE and pass it around to get the word out. We’re making a difference, guys, we just need to TALK about our OPTIONS!

(Get Alpine’s form at this link. You can’t get it on their own website yet: https://www.utahnsagainstcommoncore.com/alpine-offers-common-core-test-opt-out/)

 

Reference

Utah 2007 Math Standards Timeline of Events

4 Comments

What follows below is a timeline of the events the state of Utah went through to create new math standards in 2007. State officials traveling around the state have been spreading some false information about these standards and this post is an effort to reveal the whole story and expose the state office of education’s utter lack of interest in quality standards. They didn’t care then, and they don’t care about the quality of standards now, and they say that those of us in opposition to Common Core don’t even want standards. The truth is, we’re the only ones fighting for quality standards.

The short background on this is in 2004 I discovered my daughter was no longer being taught the times tables and wouldn’t be taught long division. We took things into our own hands at home to make sure she learned these things. I also went to the school district to complain and ask that they teach these basic things and discovered that due to low state standards, they didn’t have to, and had actually punished teachers who stepped outside the district’s policy of fully implementing Investigations math. So I went over their heads to the legislature to get our state standards raised and this was the resulting timeline of events.

2/2/2006

http://www.oaknorton.com/mathupdates/20060203.cfm

I appeared to the education committee of the legislature to testify that Utah’s standards were inadequate and allowed for programs like Investigations math to be used in Alpine School District. State curriculum director Brett Moulding was in attendance and contradicted me. The result was the legislature considering adopting the California math standards to replace ours.

 

10/2006

http://www.oaknorton.com/mathupdates/20061018.cfm

In October 2006, Utah legislators invited Dr. Jim Milgram to review and comment on our then D-rated (by Fordham Foundation) math standards. Dr. Milgram pointed out numerous problems. West Ed came with a 500 page analysis of Utah’s standards and concluded they were similar to California’s excellent A rated standards. Milgram trashed that notion with mathematical precision. Several times during this meeting, people from the state office of education said that each state should customize standards to meet their own needs. The USOE personnel had also argued in prior meetings and perhaps this one, that creating new standards and implementing them would be costly to the state, especially since they’d done it just 5 or so years ago.

 

11/15/2006

http://www.oaknorton.com/mathupdates/20061115.cfm

It was a direct result of that meeting that led legislators in this interim session to pass a resolution to redo the math standards and get us world class standards. State office acknowledges this directive and gets on it. You can read the resolution at this link.

 

1/17/2007

http://www.oaknorton.com/mathupdates/20070117.cfm

State Superintendent Patti Harrington agreed to the task of creating new standards and the USOE put together a committee of people including Dr. David Wright, and Dr. Hugo Rossi. 11 of the 16 members the USOE selected had signed a document in 2006 that Utah did not need to change its math standards. Bad start.

 

February 20, 2007

– Email provided by Dr. David Wright, BYU Math Dept.

Diana Suddreth sends email to members of drafting committee containing most recent drafts of the core revisions. Email mentions upcoming meetings for the committees and focus groups in Roosevelt on March 27th, and Jordan on April 10th. No focus groups in Utah ever happened for Common Core.

 

5/2007

http://www.oaknorton.com/edcommitteemeeting-may2007.cfm

The math standards were written over the next few months and then they were presented in the May 2007 interim committee meeting. At this meeting, Nicole Paulson, USOE state math curriculum director noted concerning the new standards:

Focus groups were held throughout the state
Elementary core is 2 months ahead—In April there were public hearings on the elementary standards
External review occurred as well
June-presentation to state board for final approval
Secondary core
June-request permission for public hearings
August-final approval
Standards will be for implementation of 07-08 school year
Content was reviewed against other states and nations
Clarity and coherence is significantly increased in the math standards

Statements from the meeting:

Senator Howard Stephenson: We talked a year ago about comparing our standards to Singapore and California.  Dr. Wright how would you compare these new standards to Singapore and CA?

Dr. David Wright: Our standards are good, but they don’t have the clarity of California’s standards.  However some of our standards are better particularly when we discussed with Dr. Wu one of the external reviewers who worked on the CA standards the importance of the number line and other items.  If these were given to the Fordham Foundation they might get a B rating, I’d like to get an A rating but we have to start somewhere.  If we adopt CA standards there would be a lot of rebellion among teachers having something forced on them where they weren’t part of the process.  As I said earlier, end of level tests and professional development are also important to the process and I think that we have the potential in this state to do very well indeed.  We have great teachers in Utah who will get the job done.

Dr. Wright also noted that the request of the legislature last year to adopt “world class standards” has not occurred due primarily to the composition of the committee and politics being played between math educators and mathematicians. Dr. Wright also did extensive work in 2006 to get math professors all around Utah to sign a petition to have Utah adopt California’s math standards, an idea the USOE shot down because they didn’t want to have the same standards as another state…

Basically, Utah got much improved standards, but they were never benchmarked against other top performing nations or states. Nicole had told Dr. Wright they would be compared against Singapore’s standards but they were not. Interestingly, Dr. Wright in 2006 got 144 Utah professors of math related fields, to sign a petition for Utah to just adopt California’s excellent standards.

http://utahmath.org/signatures.html

 

May 31, 2007

– Email provided by Dr. David Wright, BYU Math Dept.

Diana Suddreth emails out the most recent working draft of the standards. Mentions a meeting June 28 in Farmington at 1 pm and notes if they “have a significant amount of public response, we may meet earlier.” This shows they were getting public comment and considering it. Something that never happened under Common Core.

 

June 20, 2007

http://www.oaknorton.com/mathupdates/20070620.cfm

http://www.oaknorton.com/mathupdates/20070627.cfm

Public comments are sought on the new math standards. The USOE posted a survey up and asked for feedback on the standards.

 

June 25, 2007

– Email provided by Dr. David Wright, BYU Math Dept.

Diana Suddreth emails a reminder of the June 28 Farmington meeting and it’s been changed to a 9 am start time because of the public comments they’d received. That’s 4 hours earlier than the last email noted for a start time. Notes a big complaint that the Pythagorean Theorem was removed. Public hearings this week are in Ogden (Wednesday) and Logan (Friday).

 

July 5, 2007

– Email provided by Dr. David Wright, BYU Math Dept.

Diana Suddreth emails a final draft of the secondary math core. They plan to meet to make a final review before approving for delivery to the state board.

 

June 7, 2007

– Email provided by Dr. David Wright, BYU Math Dept.

Diana Suddreth emails with a subject line “Public hearings authorized”, stating in the body of the email, “The Board of Education approved our proposal for public hearings at their meeting this morning.  There is a link on the secondary website for interested parties to submit input.  I will also accept email and regular mail comment.  I will compile all that is submitted for our review at our next meeting.”

 

August 2, 2007

Legislators are concerned about the new math standards based on feedback from constituents and they invite Dr. Milgram to perform an external review of the new standards.

Dr. Milgram’s report declares the new standards a mess and in need of significant work. Key components were left out of the draft by the USOE and after making a few changes recommended by the first external reviewer, Dr. Hung-Hsi Wu at Berkeley, the USOE introduced new errors into the standards by their poor efforts to make corrections.

This is the letter to the state board from the chairs of the Interim Education Committee

http://www.senatesite.com/Documents/2007/MathStandardsEmail.pdf

This is Dr. Milgram’s review of the standards. (7 pages)

http://www.senatesite.com/Documents/2007/MathStandards.pdf

In Dr. Milgram’s report, he quotes Dr. Wu, the external reviewer, who said, “Except for (I think) three or four small instances involving very simple changes in the standards of K-6, such as the change of one word (e.g., ‘value’ to ‘number’), they left intact almost EVERY objection I made. In other words, the mess is still where it was before.”

Members of the state office of education are apparently stating that Dr. Milgram said this of the 2007 standards and use it to justify the adoption of Common Core as an improvement. Firstly, it wasn’t Dr. Milgram’s statement, it was the external reviewer Dr. Wu that said it. Secondly, Common Core’s math is actually a full year behind our 2007 math standards which put most students on track to complete algebra 1 by 8th grade and to calculus by 12th, while Common Core’s integrated path pushes those classes back a full year for completion of algebra 1 in 9th grade and only pre-calculus by 12th, for most students.

The rest of Dr. Milgram’s report showed specific instances where the language and presentation of the standards was particularly weak. Among statements in his report:

“Prof. Wu strenuously objected to this standard in his report, but his objection was ignored.”

“As I said, I’ve just scratched the surface here. Prof. Wu’s description of the document as “the mess” is entirely apt.”

“It has been my experience that when standards do not spell out, in detail, what needs to be covered, that material will not be covered. Additionally, when there is no coherence

to the standards, there will be no coherence in instruction. Students will simply learn long lists of factoids, and will never develop anything approaching mathematical proficiency.”

“So I am forced to conclude, as I stated in the introduction, that it is impossible to simply revise the Utah document. It must be entirely redone.”

This was harsh criticism. It was somewhat of a surprise after Dr. Wright thought the standards were perhaps B-rated, when the Fordham Foundation gave them an A-. Was it deserved? Considering that the USOE didn’t want to change the standards, appointed a majority of people to the committee who signed a document that our prior D rated standards didn’t need changed, and the USOE brought in West Ed to try and convince the legislators to not change the standards, it’s not much of a surprise that there were some problems in the standards. They were, however, correctable to a large extent if Dr. Wu’s review had been followed…

In fact, of special note is that without Dr. Wu’s strenuous effort, the 2007 standards would not have had exponents included in them. http://www.oaknorton.com/mathupdates/20070811.cfm

 

August 3, 2007

– Email provided by Dr. David Wright, BYU Math Dept.

Diana Suddreth emails with a subject line “Secondary math core passes”. Body of email says, “The Utah State School Board unanimously approved the Secondary Mathematics Core Curriculum this afternoon.  Again, thank you everyone for your hard work on this.”

 

August 24, 2007

http://www.oaknorton.com/stateboardreplytomilgram.pdf

The state board sent a letter signed by the board president and state superintendent to Utah legislators in response to Milgram’s letter to the committee chairs. They took issue with his comments and describe how the process wasn’t rushed and they had external reviewers vet them. Here are a couple quotes from the letter:

“The Utah State Board of Education and State Superintendent of Public Instruction Patti Harrington believe the new math standards are, in fact, the world class standards that we all want. These standards offer the rigor needed in the classroom and will hold students and teachers accountable for learning. They also offer flexibility to teachers to use their classroom time to the students’ best advantage.”

“Our new math standards will not leave our students behind. This is a curriculum that will prepare Utah’s best to compete with the best in the world in scientific, technological and engineering innovation. It will also equip all Utah students with the math skills needed for tomorrow’s world.”

They were very confident in the new standards.

 

On or about Sept. 19, 2007

http://www.oaknorton.com/mathupdates/20070926.cfm

Interim Education Committee meeting.

Testimony was given that the new standards had not been internationally benchmarked, contrary to USOE statements.

Legislators asked USOE officials what the external reviewers thought of the standards and if there had been communication with them. They were told that the external reviews went great, everything was implemented, and no additional communication had been given by the external reviewers after the standards were completed.

At that point Dr. Milgram, present by phone, chimed in that indeed Nicole Paulson at the state office had communicated and received communication back from Dr. Wu at Berkeley regarding a question she posed to him. It seems that when Milgram wrote his review to legislators in the prior month and made his harsh statements and quoted Dr. Wu saying the new standards were in the same “mess” they were in when he reviewed them, Nicole wanted to try and challenge Milgram’s statement as if he had made that up. Nicole emailed Dr. Wu asking him if he’d really said that. She didn’t know that Wu had sent that letter BCC to Dr. Milgram so he would be aware of it. Nicole wasn’t going to bring up to the committee that Dr. Wu had confirmed the standards were “a mess” and that they hadn’t implemented his recommendations, so on the spot Milgram forwarded Wu’s reply email to Nicole, to the committee. Here is the scathing letter they got that was then discussed.

***

Nicole,

Thank you for your courteous note. I can understand your consternation upon reading the quote in Jim Milgam’s letter of my reaction to the revised standards (incidentally, he quoted me correctly), but if you realize that I had taken for granted that most of what I recommended would be implemented, then you would also understand why I was so shocked when I was reluctantly made to read the revision.

I made seven major recommendations:

(1) on the emphasis of the number line,

(2) on revamping the treatment of area,

(3) on a major overhaul of the treatment of rational numbers,

(4) on eliminating linguistic overkill,

(5) on improving he treatment of transformations and congruence,

(6) on automatic recall of the multiplication table,

(7) on an overhaul of the progression in K-6 from informal mathematics

in K-3 to deeper and more formal mathematics.

In the revision, there was a pro forma attempt to attend to (1), (2) and (5), but little or nothing was done about the rest. Let me explain just a bit about what I meant by “pro forma”. Consider the case of the number line. As far as I can see, two references to the number line were added to grade 1 and one reference was added to grade 2. These only scratch the surface of my main concern, which is that the number line has not been accorded “its rightful place in the school curriculum as a major idea that unifies various concepts and skills”. Moreover, (4) and (6) could have been addressed with ease, but they were not.

Of the other detailed suggestions that I made (over 40), many were not followed. Among those not followed, the most serious are the ones about mixed numbers and addition of fractions in grade 5, and the use of “predict” in connection with data in grade 3. Clearly, the committee and I are not of like minds.

Please understand that I had no intention of returning to the revised standard after writing my review, because doing the review already did me in as I had become way behind in my own work. But then rumors about the revision began to swirl around the internet. Milgram asked me about my opinion, and I was forced to take a look. My initial shock at the extent my comments had been ignored probably prompted me to exaggerate a bit about “Except for (I think) three or four small instances involving very simple changes in the standards of K-6” when I wrote to him. Now that I have tallied more carefully, I know that I should have said “a small number” rather than “three or four”. Sorry about that.

Finally, I must said in plain English that, although the Utah Standards are not by any means atrocious (in the sense that I have seen much worse), they need to adequately address five of the seven major flaws I pointed out before they can be called acceptable (all except (1) and (4)). To achieve respectability, it must address (1) and (4) as well in my opinion. And this does not even take into account of the detailed corrections I suggested. To recall what our joint report wrote about it being “a sound document that, if faithfully implemented, would lead to increased student learning”, it embarrasses me very much to point out that our team, having meet with Brett and having been told how it was necessary to expedite the PR process, decided to go along and only touched on a few criticisms for public consumption but reserved our real messages in our individual reports. In my case, I was very sympathetic to all the work the Steering Committee had done and tried to keep my comments to an *absolute* minimum. I was certain that my self-restraint in expressing my judgment would make it possible for every single one of my suggestions to be adequately addressed. Imagine therefore my shock when I found that almost the opposite was the case. But I am afraid I am now repeating myself and therefore must stop.

Dr. Wu

***

This is complete proof that the USOE did NOT take seriously their charge to give us world-class standards or the recommendations by external reviewers who are accomplished standards writers, and they finally had to acknowledge that fact. The bottom line is the Utah State Office of Education wasn’t interested in changing standards and certainly didn’t care about the quality of our standards when they were carrying D rated standards for several years.

 

Fast forward to 2010. The USOE decides to adopt Common Core with great haste. In spite of claiming in 2006-7 that Utah needs their own unique standards, they adopt Common Core along with 45 other states including California, which they said back then they didn’t want to ever do.

They determine that Common Core won’t cost Utahn’s anything, because we would have eventually spent the money anyway, a sharp contrast to their argument against the 2007 standards process they said was too expensive for Utah to adopt new standards.

They declare we need to have common standards to facilitate moving students in and out of the state, then choose to adopt the integrated method of math along with Vermont and put us on an incompatible path than ALL THE OTHER STATES.

Some at the USOE and on the state board have said that we complained about the 2007 standards and so did Dr. Milgram and so they felt they needed to improve on them by adopting Common Core, yet Dr. Milgram has been very vocal in opposition to Common Core’s standards. Why would they listen to Dr. Milgram in one case but not in the other?

What caused Utah to change its tune so easily? The same thing as other states…the potential to get Race to the Top money.

What caused us to adopt the integrated math method? Utah’s infatuation with constructivist math, a proven failure, and destructive to a quality education.

 

Concerns

A Plethora of News

Leave a comment

I’ve received so many emails this week it’s hard to keep track of everything. I decided to just put a bunch of the unique articles here as a hodge-podge. Enjoy! Or maybe “Don’t Panic” would be more appropriate, especially if it was typed in large, friendly letters…

Governor appoints Tami Pyfer, Common Core Proponent, to be education advisor

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865595473/Herberts-new-education-adviser-says-shes-terrified-and-having-a-ball.html

Common Core Rebranding Effort

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/rebranding-common-core

We’ve already seen this in Utah early on where the USOE started lying to people by saying “we don’t have Common Core, we have the Utah Core.” It’s pretty blatant around the country.

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R) used an executive order to strip the name “Common Core” from the state’s new math and reading standards for public schools. In the Hawkeye State, the same standards are now called “The Iowa Core.” And in Florida, lawmakers want to delete “Common Core” from official documents and replace it with the cheerier-sounding “Next Generation Sunshine State Standards.”

In the face of growing opposition to the Common Core State Standards – a set of K-12 educational guidelines adopted by most of the country – officials in a handful of states are worried that the brand is already tainted. They’re keeping the standards but slapping on fresh names they hope will have greater public appeal.

At a recent meeting of the Council of Chief State School Officers, one of the organizations that helped create the standards, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee (R) urged state education leaders to ditch the “Common Core” name, noting that it had become “toxic.”

“Rebrand it, refocus it, but don’t retreat,” said Huckabee, now the host of a Fox News talk show and a supporter of the standards.

David Coleman, President of the College Board, Architect of Common Core, loves that data

David Coleman, architect of Common Core, identifies the Common Core data collection policy as positive because of all the data mining they can do to make decisions from, including development of its economic justice project, the Access to Rigor Campaign.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/02/02/Obama-s-Re-Election-Team-Invited-By-Common-Core-Architect-David-Coleman-To-Collect-Student-Data-On-Poor-and-Latino-Low-Hanging-Fruit

Tracking & Classifying Our Children From Pre-K To College

As time goes on, more people are waking up. This time from New York’s implementation of the P20-W database which Utah already has.
http://politicaloutcast.com/2014/01/tracking-classifying-children-pre-k-college/#xQ1Go1i63mmIyvqg.99

Common Core State Standards and Autistic Students—The Shoe Doesn’t Fit

http://www.nancyebailey.com/2014/01/23/common-core-state-standards-and-autistic-students-the-shoe-doesnt-fit/

Diane Ravitch: Everything you need to know about Common Core

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2014/01/18/everything-you-need-to-know-about-common-core-ravitch/

The Core of Common Core Exposed by Cherilyn Eagar

http://cherilyneagar.com/2014/01/core-common-core-exposed/

The push for more school has arrived

This article says how staying in school longer is a key to good health!

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/staying-longer-at-school-key-to-good-health/story-fni0fiyv-1226816134432

This one says the normal school day is insufficient to properly implement Common Core. Sort of reminds me of the “if we just had a little more control we could fully implement [fill in the blank] correctly.”

http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/time_and_learning/2014/01/expanding_school_time_can_help_implement_common_core_says_report.html

 

“The children belong to all of us”

Gotta love this clip. I find it fascinating that so many pro-Common Core people promote the lie that people against Common Core don’t want standards. It’s those “fringe voices about federalism and states’ rights” that are driving the anti-Common Core movement. Listen to Mr. Harvard spew forth one lie after another.

 

Principal Tim Farley speaks out

“I think the standards are developmentally inappropriate especially at the younger grades”

“I’d like to see Common Core eliminated from the schools and let the professionals make those decisions.”

http://youtu.be/zpI7IWY-zco

Senator Lindsay Graham to introduce a bill to stop national curriculum

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/01/31/senate-resolution-to-tackle-common-cores-threat-of-national-curriculum/

Calls to Curb Common Core in Tennessee Legislature

http://www.fox17.com/news/features/top-stories/stories/calls-curb-common-core-tn-19336.shtml

Kentucky is pulling out of PARCC which drops PARCC states down to 17

http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/curriculum/2014/01/kentucky_withdraws_from_parcc_.html?cmp=ENL-EU-NEWS2

New Hampshire schools struggling with SBAC assessments. Teachers and principals complain.

http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/news/1027308-469/nashua-middle-school-principal-outlines-serious-concerns.html

Kansas senator running bill to keep education local and stop the feds from forcing education standards on the states.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/02/01/Kansas-Sen-Roberts-Proposes-Bill-to-Feds-in-Education-Over-Common-Core

 

 

News

Ask and Ye Shall be Disappointed

3 Comments

The following is a response to a former State Board member who weighed in on a FaceBook discussion about why the State Board had rushed to adopt the Common Core Standards according to a timeline that seemed to exclude serious consideration and certainly excluded the possibility of public consideration. He insists that the board studied the standards for months and that “anyone call those folks and they would tell you that is what happened.”

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Joel, many of us in this group have indeed asked members of the board about the adoption and more, and when their answers didn’t match up with the verifiable facts, our confidence in them was understandably diminished.

I understand what you are saying about the Board reviewing the standards for months… you are probably referring to the DRAFT of the standards that had been made public. Funny thing though, the board’s feedback resulting from this months-long review has never been publicly shared so I guess we’ll just have to take their word for it in spite of the fact that representative government doesn’t typically require blind trust. Perhaps they felt confident that private reviews of the draft was adequate, but if they had anticipated that the standards writers would actually incorporate any of the feedback of those select few who were even able to give it, wouldn’t they also be anticipating the possibility of significant changes in the final version? Or, is this an admission that everyone knew the standards would be what they would be and that the board’s decision was really about whether to go along with the other states, and not about the standards on their own merits?

You’re right, meeting minutes can be vague at times. Good thing we have the audio. As Brenda had so succinctly put it in the meeting where the board authorized the initial MOU for the state to participate with the Common Core initiative in the first place, “half a billion is no small chuck of change” and “it doesn’t concern me that it will be so wildly out of line that we couldn’t live with it.”

Two Days after the final draft was released the board voted to adopt on first reading. Then a handful of weeks more there was the final vote. Why the rush? They wouldn’t be implemented for over a year. In the audio of that first board meeting that Connor referred to, Larry Shumway makes it clear that the standards had to be adopted for an upcoming interview about the State’s Race to the Top application. Now, after losing out on that grant, the board inexplicably insists that there was no Federal influence on their decision!

Dave Thomas stated in our recent debate that the Federal government was deliberately excluded from the initiative, implying the USED jumped on the bandwagon later with Race to the Top. I wonder, did he read the MOU the board had authorized the superintendent to sign in 2009 that clearly outlines what the Federal role would be? It’s only a couple of pages long.

Or, there is the congressional hearing around that same time where T. Kenneth James, then president of the Council of Chief State School Officers said, “I think it [the Common Core Initiative] can be done without the perception that the federal government is driving the train.” Then they discussed how the Feds leverage education funding and use their “pulpit” to promote it.

On your blog, Joel, you talk about the public comment on the standards to the board as evidence that the public was aware of what was happening and link to the minutes of two State Board Meetings as evidence. If anyone bothers to click on the links and read, they will see that Oak (one person, not plural) was one of two “public” and the only one to comment on standards. It turns out that at that time he was talking about Utah’s own Social Studies Standards, not Common Core. He also presented the board with a petition that you mention, also not about Common Core, but about including instruction about our country as a Republic in our state Social Studies Standards. At the end of Oak’s comments in one of the two meetings he makes reference to some new, national standards that he’d heard of saying something about how he hoped we wouldn’t go that direction. Evidence of the board’s representation, of their engagement with their constituents, or should I say constituent, on Common Core?

You can read more of what I’ve already written about what I think are flaws with the adoption process: (http://www.utahnsagainstcommoncore.com/the-common-core-standards-were-not-talking-about/.)

Some of us have asked about the costs and why there wasn’t a formal cost study done. There was the claim you shared with me on FaceBook about the tens of millions saved by adopting the Common Core. Didn’t you say $75 million? I read over the budget for the past four years and couldn’t find that. I asked you for a reference then and am still waiting.

You probably don’t recall the “bagels and bills” event that I attended and sat at the same table as you did. I had come in hopes of meeting my State Board representative with whom I’d been unable to connect via email or phone. Instead I sat dumbfounded as he used his time to talk to the audience about the crazy moms (lumping all mothers’ voices into one) who were publicly discussing their concerns about Common Core, which he called “conspiracy theories,” and basically asked the local school board and local chamber to disregard what he characterized as unfounded fringe opinions, as he had determined to do. All this without his ever having engaged in a conversation with a single one of us. I never was able to introduce myself to him that day.

There was the time that Christel was speaking to a board member about why the board was unwilling to meet and discuss with some of us our concerns. The board member said she had met several times with Ms. Swasey. Christel had to ask, “Did you know that is me? I’m Ms. Swasey?” I could go on, but as you can see, it’s kind of embarrassing and that is not my goal.

It’s not these interactions alone that shake people’s confidence. I am always told to “read the standards” as if they are so wonderful I couldn’t possibly have concerns if I’d actually read them. We parents don’t have the benefit of the official professional development to help us overlook the obtuse and jargon-filled wording of the standards themselves to construct generous interpretations of their quality.

I went to the Logan debate prepared to discuss the standards themselves and instead fielded nebulous questions about what my “dream education system” would look like. I thought it silly that as Tami talked about the standards that night she gave examples of counting to 100 and basic addition – as if that’s all the standards are, as if we didn’t teach those things before Common Core. She got applause for claiming that with common standards kids will be able to move from state to state and be on the same page. Is she not aware that there are four adoption paths outlined in Appendix A of the CC Math Standards? Utah adopted was is called the “integrated” path that spreads the topics across classes and grades so uniquely that it seems likely that Utah will be even more out of sync with what other states (including those that adopted CC) are teaching, and in what order, than ever. Only one other state did this. So, unless those who were applauding are planning to move to Vermont they may be in for a rude awakening. What about all those students who move here from other states, or a homeschool student trying to be placed back into public school, but who had been studying math by discrete subject? How will they fit into a system that teaches a little algebra here and a little geometry there? Did the board study that? If commonality is the most appealing benefit that is supposed to compensate Utahans for what we’ve given up, why are we implementing it the way we are?

Then there is the increase in informational texts recommended for ELA. Appendix A of the ELA standards is the “research” for the standards. It is basically just an essay about text complexity with only a couple of footnotes through which the writers notably, in the first instance, consult themselves. It offers some kind of interesting insights about how text complexity is measured and how text complexity differs across various media and over time. Then, it puts forth what is basically a hypothesis that if kids dissect a graduated complexity of informational texts they will be more career-ready. It is followed by a list of other research papers (not directly referenced to anything in the text itself as one would expect of a “research” paper), also primarily about text complexity. There is no Newkirk, who wrote about how kids who read a lot and are intrinsically engaged in what they read are better readers and writers. There is no Oatley who has been recognized internationally for his research on the psychological effects of reading and writing and the importance of reading fiction. The Common Core hypothesis for ELA is that in college and as adults we typically read more informational text, therefore we should read more in K-12 as well. It’s nothing more than an untested theory that is made all the more concerning by the fact that there does exist research that might suggest  the opposite is true – that, for that very same reason, students ought to be reading more classic literature and fiction to voluntarily increase reading stamina and to develop a more sure foundation in the ideas of the best thinkers and observers of our civilization as can only be conveyed in the great literary works that have outlasted the educational fads of the moment.

I’m not saying I am absolutely right or have all the answers but am discouraged that the board can’t offer anything of substance to counter concerns, but tend to rely on endorsements as if it were evidence.

They don’t even seem to be familiar with the basics of the agreements they authorized to be signed, like the 15% cap on adding to the standards. The board gave a presention to members of the legislature in which they denied that such limitation even existed despite the fact that we were able to show them several places in primary governing documents where it did exist, not counting the minutes of the board meeting where the 15% was stated expressly in their adopting vote. (See slide 20 of the board’s presentation posted here: http://www.utahnsagainstcommoncore.com/rebuttal-to-usbe-presentation-on-common-core/)

Sorry about rambling on. I share all this “water under the bridge” stuff only to make the point that many of us have “asked the board” and discovered that as much as we like you and the members of the board personally, and as well-intentioned as they undoubtedly are, they haven’t proved to be a reliable source of information or insight on these topics. That is why your advice here “to ask” comes across as a little condescending and why many of us are looking forward to enabling a process of getting members on the state board who are more electorally accountable to their constituents, who might demonstrate a little more independence of thought instead of parroting the company line, and who might be a little more diligent with the details.

It’s not about finding someone who always agrees with one view on Common Core or another. I’d prefer disagreement in the context of an honest discourse about the pros and cons of de facto national standards,

or about what is really meant by the “critical thinking” that seems to be the magic sauce of the standards according to proponents, (you thought “state-led” had a lot of different meanings!)

or about the obligations associated with and our reliance on federal funds,

or about whether workforce preparation should be the primary goal of education

and about how the adoption of the Common Core standards and the other stimulus-driven reforms affect Utah in all of those areas.

In conclusion, repeating to parents ad nauseam talking points about how the standards are “rigorous” (because we said so) and “internationally benchmarked” (“in spirit,” to quote directly from the CCSS) smacks of propaganda. I really don’t think I’m the only person who is tired of such nonsense and that’s why I believe the controversy around this topic is not going to die down any time soon. Advising clearly frustrated constituents who have done their homework to “ask” board members who haven’t been able to demonstrate that they’ve done theirs only adds fuel to the fire.