All posts by Alyson Williams

Fact Check on Governor Herbert’s Letter to Delegates

April 13, 2016 Alyson Williams 3 Comments

Ed. Note: Those who are serving as state delegates have received no less than five communications in the past week from Governor Herbert related to Common Core where he asserts that he is opposed to Common Core. Anyone who believes this is either unaware of the past six years of history or willfully closing their eyes and sticking their head in the ground. Just today I received a robocall from the Lt. Governor, Spencer Cox, in which he states Governor Herbert has “fought against federal control of education including Common Core.” What respect I had for the Lt. Governor has been dramatically reduced. What follows below is a rebuttal by Alyson Williams of the letter delegates received from Governor Herbert.

Don’t miss the other article exposing how involved Governor Herbert has been in promoting Common Core.

In a letter to State delegates dated April 7, 2016, Governor Herbert listed seven points, concluding with a personal note, to clarify his position on Common Core in Utah. A fact check against other sources follows each excerpted point below:

1) I have called for the elimination of the federal Department of Education.

TRUE (but don’t miss the fine print): While the topic didn’t come up in his remarks to Congress, he did say there should not be a federal Department of Education on his Facebook page:

Now for the fine print, here are his remarks to Congress: http://blog.governor.utah.gov/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Written-Testimony-of-Governor-Gary-Herbert-UT-Sen-HELP-02-23-16-FINAL-1.pdf

In short, the Governor outlines how instead of the Federal Department of Education controlling nationwide policies for education, Governors should collude to set nationwide policy for education. Calling for the elimination of the Department of Ed while advocating for an extragovernmental process to accomplish a different centralization of power is not a principle of constitutional federalism. It is a Constitution work around.

2) I signed into law SB287 – a bill that makes it illegal for the federal government to have any control.

FALSE: No law in our state makes it “illegal” for the federal government to have “any control.” 2012 SB287 (http://le.utah.gov/~2012/bills/static/SB0287.html) began as a list of conditions under which Utah “shall exit” any federal education agreement. However, by the time it reached the Governor’s pen, it said, “may exit.” The degree to which Utah avoids federal parameters over local education policy is dependent on the people we elect to various positions of authority and whether they will take action not because they “shall” but because they “may” do so. Governor Herbert has taken great pains to emphasize Utah’s legal authority to take an alternative path to Common Core and yet he has not advocated doing it. As the chair of the National Governor’s Association, a key stakeholder in the Common Core State Standards Initiative, he accepted a nationally prominent role in promoting these reforms.

3) I called for Attorney General Sean Reyes to conduct an exhaustive investigation to determine whether or not the state of Utah had ceded authority over our education system to the federal government on Common Core or any other standards. He concluded that Utah has not. We control our standards, our curriculum, our textbooks and our testing.

FALSE: Herbert did ask AG Sean Reyes to conduct an investigation but within carefully selected parameters, not an “exhaustive” one. The report provided legal justification for whether Utah could join or exit Common Core while avoiding a conversation Utahans can’t seem to have with this Governor about whether Utah should have joined or would exit Common Core.

As far as ceding authority to the federal government, the AG report acknowledges “the USDOE, by imposing those waiver conditions, has infringed upon state and local authority over public education. States have consented to the infringement, through federal coercion…”

A full response to this report by a Utah teacher can be found here: https://whatiscommoncore.wordpress.com/2014/10/28/responding-to-the-attorney-generals-report-on-common-core/

Download the AG report here: http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/files/attorney-general-legal-analysis-100714.pdf

4) I commissioned Utah Valley University President Matt Holland and a group of experts to review our education standards. With over 7,000 public comments, this committee recommended improvements to standards and the state board has implemented many of these proposed changes.

UNDISCLOSED BIAS: Throughout his campaign, Governor Herbert has referred to his Common Core review commission using only Matt Holland’s recognizable name, leaving out that the original chair, Rich Kendell (eventual co-chair with Holland), was an advisor for Prosperity 2020 and Education First. Prosperity 2020 Chair Allan Hall was also on the commission as was Rob Brems, a member of the Utah Data Alliance Executive Board. (Common standards are an invaluable asset for data collection.) All are highly qualified people, who, it must be noted, publicly favored these reforms before this commission was assembled. There was just one k12 teacher on the commission, from a private school, and she did not concur with the report but her reasons for dissent are not specifically listed.

In another example of this one-sided approach, the report references two experts who came to Utah to testify about the quality of the Standards but does not disclose their previous connection to the Common Core State Standards Initiative. Timothy Shanahan from the University of Chicago was on the writing committee for the standards, and David Pearson from UC Berkeley was on the Common Core Standards validation committee. Both have published works and give seminars to help teachers implement Common Core around the country. The concerns of the dissenting members of the Common Core validation committee who have also submitted testimony in Utah were never mentioned.

LIMITATIONS ON PUBLIC COMMENT: Public comment was limited to making suggestions standard by standard and not on the overall scope and sequence of the framework, or on things that are absent from the standards.

NO MEANINGFUL REVISIONS: As far as proposed changes coming from the report, there is a list of changes to the standards, but they are all corrections of typographical errors or clarifications of the wording. (p. 33) Other less specific recommendations are scattered throughout, but are seemingly limited to organizational considerations like better cross-referencing between the standards and supporting materials with no substantive revisions.

Perhaps the most illuminating aspect of the report is this statement that is repeated several times regarding the natural limitation to making meaningful changes to standards that are intended, as a priority, to be common across the U.S.:

“The Utah Core Standards can be revised and improved over time in accordance with Utah students’ needs and based on sound research, while staying similar enough to other states to assist transferability at grade level.”

RISKS FOR REMEDIATION UNCHANGED: Another conclusion of note was whether Common Core would reduce college remediation (starts pg 27): “Students who master Secondary Math I, II, and III standards will be very well prepared for postsecondary education and training programs.” In other words, in this report that ironically emphasizes the need to teach more “critical thinking,” we see an example of circular reasoning: students who master the content (or, who do not need remediation) will not need remediation… just like students who mastered content in previous math programs in Utah.

UNKNOWN OUTCOMES: This is immediately followed by the observation that we won’t truly know how college readiness will be impacted until we see how the kids who have been through Common Core get to college – underlining one of the biggest concerns of parents, that this is a statewide (nationwide) experiment on a scale that will reduce alternatives and inhibit the innovation driven by competing ideas. This experiment will affect an entire generation of Utah students but we can only hypothesize about the outcome: “Research on students who complete all of the grade levels of the mathematics standards will be required to verify that the standards (and their effective implementation) make a difference.” (p.28)

A link to the report: http://www.utah.gov/governor/docs/utahcorestandards/Standards_Review_Panel_Report_to_the_Governor.FINAL.2.5.15.pdf

5) I, and others, successfully lobbied Congress to repeal the No Child Left Behind Act and return education authority to the states. This policy change was heralded by the Wall Street Journal as the “largest devolution of federal control to the states in a quarter-century.”

FALSE: ESSA didn’t repeal “No Child Left Behind,” it reauthorized it. NCLB is just a nickname for one of the previous reauthorizations of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act that has been due for reauthorization since 2007. This reauthorization was dubbed the “Every Student Succeeds Act.” It was revised to eliminate one of the most unpopular aspects of NCLB, the penalties for not meeting targets for AYP, but put nearly everything that had been pushed in the federal grants and waivers under Obama’s Department of Education into federal statute. Obama’s Secretary of Education said everything his administration had “promoted and proposed forever” is embedded in ESSA: http://truthinamericaneducation.com/elementary-and-secondary-education-act/arne-duncan-essa-embodies-the-core-of-our-agenda/

Here’s a letter sent to Utah’s Congressional delegation from a group of local parents highlighting a few of their concerns with ESSA: https://whatiscommoncore.wordpress.com/2015/12/02/letter-to-congress-and-compiled-notes-from-alyson-williams-and-50-citizen-readers-on-esea-every-student-succeeds-act/

Every member of Utah’s Congressional delegation, with the exception of Senator Hatch, voted against ESSA.

6) Assessing the progress of our students is important, but we want to maximize the time they spend learning, not the time they spend taking tests. This session, I worked with the Legislature and signed two bills into law that reduce high-stakes testing in our schools (SAGE testing).

TRUE-ish: Governor Herbert did sign the bill removing the high stakes for SAGE assessments from teacher evaluations and another bill that makes the SAGE test optional for 11^th graders (who would likely be taking a different standardized test for college application purposes.) It is not clear how either of those reduce testing unless, in the first case, it is assumed that teachers will require less test practice if their evaluation isn’t directly impacted. In the second case, it’s likely just making room for a different high-stakes test.

7) Every budgetary proposal and policy decision I make is to give more authority and discretion to local school districts and local schools. I have continually advocated for increases to funding that gets to the classroom and can be tailored for local needs.

FALSE: Not every policy proposal. Much of the Governor’s Excellence in Education plan dating back to 2010 and the associated calls for additional funding have been in the context of his Education 2020 plan to expand state educational policy to include early childhood education (preschool, all day kindergarten), workforce alignment initiatives, data collection, and school and teacher accountability which is money for bureaucracy and additional programs, not an increase for the average classroom. He did call for additional $ to go into the WPU in his 2017 budget.

On a personal note, I have eleven grandchildren in Utah public schools. I’ve seen the frustration they and their parents have had over math assignments they didn’t understand and teachers struggled to teach. I have expressed my dissatisfaction with the flawed implementation of new standards, especially in math…

NOTE: It seems too common that when a top-down program fails it is blamed on the “implementation.” This is a key reason for true local control and for programs to be initiated at the level where the expertise, resources and student needs are best understood. Teachers should not be scapegoats for programs chosen by politicians.

News

Ask and Ye Shall be Disappointed

February 1, 2014 Alyson Williams 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