Senator Aaron Osmond has listened to a lot of parents this past year and the sometimes horrible situations schools have put their children in forcing them to take tests they were opted out of, lying to children and telling them it was the law and they had to take it, etc… With the recent USOE memo trying to tell parents what they could or couldn’t opt their children out of, this bill is a major relief to parents. Here’s the changes being made. You can find the full text here:
Words that have a line through them are being removed and if it’s underlined it’s being added.
(f) providing that scores on the tests and assessments required under Subsection (2)(a) 89 and Subsection (3) [shall] may not be considered in determining: 90 (i) a student’s academic grade for the appropriate course [and]; or 91 (ii) whether a student [shall] may advance to the next grade level.
53A-15-1401.Definitions. 132 As used in this part: 133 (1) “Individualized Education Plan” or “IEP” means a written statement, for a student 134 with a disability, that is developed, reviewed, and revised in accordance with the Individuals 135 with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1400 et seq.
160 (2) An LEA shall reasonably accommodate a parent’s or guardian’s written request to 161 retain a student in kindergarten through grade 8 on grade level based on the student’s academic 162 ability or the student’s social, emotional, or physical maturity. 163 (3) An LEA shall reasonably accommodate a parent’s or guardian’s initial selection of a 164 teacher or request for a change of teacher. 165 (4) An LEA shall reasonably accommodate the request of a student’s parent or guardian 166 to visit and observe any class the student attends. 167 [(5) (a) An LEA shall reasonably accommodate a written request of a student’s parent 168 or guardian to excuse the student from attendance for a family event or visit to a health care 169 provider, without obtaining a note from the provider.] 170 [(b) An excused absence provided under Subsection (5)(a) does not diminish 171 expectations for the student’s academic performance.] 172 (5) Notwithstanding Chapter 11, Part 1, Compulsory Education Requirements, an LEA 173 shall record an excused absence for a scheduled family event or a scheduled proactive visit to a 174 health care provider if: 175 (a) the parent or guardian submits a written statement at least one school day before the 176 scheduled absence; and 177 (b) the student agrees to make up course work for school days missed for the scheduled 178 absence in accordance with LEA policy.
192 (9) (a) Upon [the] receipt of a written [request] statement of a student’s parent or 193 guardian, an LEA shall excuse the student from taking [a test that is administered statewide or 194 the National Assessment of Educational Progress.]: 195 (i) any summative, interim, or formative test that is not locally developed; or 196 (ii) any test that is federally mandated or mandated by the state under this title. 197 (b) An LEA may not: 198 (i) require a meeting as a condition of excusing a student from taking a test described 199 in Subsection (9)(a); or 200 (ii) specify the form of a written statement under Subsection (9)(a). 201 (c) A written statement to an LEA to excuse a student from taking a test under 202 Subsection (9)(a) remains in effect across multiple school years until: 203 (i) further notice from the student’s parent or guardian; or 204 (ii) the student is no longer enrolled at the LEA. 205 (d) An LEA may not reward a student for taking a test described in Subsection (9)(a).
217 (11) An LEA shall reasonably accommodate a parent’s or guardian’s request to include 218 in an Individualized Education Plan elements that the parent or guardian believes are in the best 219 interest of the child.
This comment was posted on Facebook by a retired teacher. It’s public but I haven’t contacted her to ask permission to post this so I’ve withheld her name.
This is insane. Every time the legislature (federal or state) puts “controls” in place, there are always intended and unintended consequences. In this case, there are some severe consequences as teachers begin to retire in droves. A huge part of the reason is Common Core and the mandates that have come with it, and NCLB.
Here’s the story:
**************
THE CONSEQUENCES OF BEING A TEACHER in an elementary school that received a C in the recently posted school grading system as required by the NCLB waiver:
Teachers as of two weeks ago, must submit weekly, detailed lesson plans including exactly what they will say. After the plans are submitted, the teachers must meet with the principal and two of the EBL (aka curriculum administrators) to review the plans ( actually according to my source, review translated means, “teacher and lesson plan ripped to shreds”). My source was chastised for not having the Pearson/Envision on line homework available to parents and because she wrote “same” on some of what she was going to say in her lessons.)
This must be done until these three administrators are satisfied with the content of the lesson plans. Also, a DETAILED schedule must be posted on the door or outside of the teacher’s room. If it is posted that they will be teaching spelling at 11:00 a.m., they had BETTER be teaching spelling at that exact time since there will regular monitoring. If a teachers fails to comply, they will be “written up” and labeled as insubordinate. Hmmm, the principals of these schools must have their neck on the chopping block also.
This is in addition to the requirements by the district: three detailed lesson plans and three videos of the teacher presenting a lesson to reviewed by the EBL administrators. Also two yearly IPOP evaluations ( principals or administrators can “pop” in at any time) where in a 30 minute period the teacher must show a lesson being presented to an entire class, a group working together, two children working together and one child working alone. Also they must state they they show complete fidelity to Pearson.
This is in addition to the countless hours they must spend entering data into the computer in order to document 80% mastery for each concept taught–1,872 entries required alone for 4th grade grammar concepts, etc. etc.
Four teachers at this school have said, “Enough is enough” and are leaving at the end of this school year.
Dr.Thompson has often stated that this is child abuse. This is also teacher abuse. My source, who is an outstanding and hardworking teacher, has a rash over her entire body from the stress.
*****************
One person on FB replied: “This sort of thing can produce a classic ‘death spiral.’ The government forces teachers to go through tons of red tape, which reduces the amount of time and energy that the teachers have for teaching, which reduces the quality of their students’ education, which results in more government-mandated red tape, etc.”
Exactly right.
Teachers all over the nation are retiring because they can’t take it anymore. Schools have turned into a pressure cooker in our maddening desire to “make sure our children can compete in a global environment.”
“I don’t think anyone understands that in this environment if your child cannot quickly grasp material, study like a robot and pass all of these tests, they will not survive.”
Many other teachers agree with her and the article quotes one as saying, ““We will give the last [Ohio Graduation Test] this year. I don’t know if I’m going to cry when we do, because what we are moving to is unbelievable,” he said.
As a state and within our communities, leaders have embraced the natural outcome of compulsory education. The wrong questions get asked and the answers to those questions reinforce the natural processes of the system.
WRONG QUESTIONS
If we are going to force children to school, what do we want their outcomes to be?
Hey Mr. Corporation? What are your needs? What jobs do you need filled?
How can we make sure every school is compliant and teaching exactly what they are supposed to according to national standards?
How do we make sure no child is left behind and that they are always progressing ON GRADE LEVEL?
RIGHT QUESTIONS (IMO)
How do we best meet the needs of each child according to their parents desires?
How can we help stimulate a love of learning in the children?
How do we help them achieve their dreams?
How can we give children more freedom to pursue their diverse interests instead of overloading them with what someone else wants for them?
How do we ensure children’s privacy and data are completely isolated from any outside interest?
*****
I believe legislators, USOE, USBE, schools and districts, need to back off the extreme testing and curriculum mandates. We can’t keep raising the temperature on the pressure cooker. We need to vent the air before more teachers and students give up and have breakdowns. This is not a healthy environment.
Parents, you may want to seriously look into dual-enrolling your child. In fact, I strongly recommend it. I’m doing it with one of my children right now. She takes a few classes at school, and a few at home. She’s MUCH happier, she’s doing things that interest her, and she’s able to go at her own pace. It’s a great way to go.
Parents may opt out of testing in Utah according to State Superintendent Brad Smith. “The most important legal policy….by constitution, and by what I consider to be natural rights, parents have the right to opt out of anything! They don’t need permission. They don’t need to fill out a form. They don’t need to seek someone else’s response. And, that’s an inherent and integral right of parents.”..“Sage is one of the tests in all of its components that was unambiguously covered by the safe harbor provisions of Section1403 9a. And so that is one that unambiguously there is an opt out provision….But if there’s a question about SAGE, I believe there is unanimity and no ambiguity that SAGE is absolutely something that is subject to..the safe harbor provisions of 1403-9a.”–State Superintendent Brad Smith on the Feb. 2, 2015 USOE memo which restricted things parents could opt their children out of.
If you would like to send Brad a thank you note and encourage him to continue to stand for parental rights, you may email him at brad.smith@schools.utah.gov.
Awesome news from legislators on SAGE tests. In this article from Ben Wood at the SL Tribune, “Utah lawmakers sour on SAGE test,” Ben shows the about face lawmakers like Senator Howard Stephenson have had on these tests. Several years ago Sen. Stephenson was pushing for computer adaptive tests. Now he’s quoted as saying:
“There will be legislation this year to create a task force to look at doing away with the SAGE test entirely,” Stephenson said during a Public Education Appropriation Subcommittee hearing. “I think we need to be looking at the whole issue of whether we should be having end-of-level tests.”
My favorite quote in the article is Rep. LaVar Christensen’s: “If you’re going in the wrong direction, you don’t step on the gas pedal.”
How do Common Core math standards compare to high achieving nations? We can look at “Benchmarking for Success,” a late 2008 clarion call for Common Core by NGA/CCSSO/Achieve.
There, on page, 24, when it describes “Rigor” it says:
“Rigor. By the eighth grade, students in top-performing nations are studying algebra and geometry, while in the U.S., most eighth-grade math courses focus on arithmetic. In science, American eighth-graders are memorizing the parts of the eye, while students in top-performing nations are learning about how the eye actually works by capturing photons that are translated into images by the brain. In fact, the curriculum studied by the typical American eighth-grader is two full years behind the curriculum being studied by eighth-graders in high-performing countries.” (added emphasis)
This, in turn, cites an editorial-style 2005 piece by Bill Schmidt (one of the CC math standards authors) in the AFT’s American Educator (here):
“By the middle grades, the top achieving countries do not intend that children should continue to study basic computation skills. Rather, they begin the transition to the study of algebra, including linear equations and functions, geometry and, in some cases, basic trigonometry. By the end of eighth grade, children in these countries have mostly completed mathematics equivalent to U.S. high school courses in algebra I and geometry. By contrast, most U.S. students are destined for the most part to continue the study of arithmetic. In fact, we estimate that, at the end of eighth grade, U.S. students are some two or more years behind their counterparts around the world.” (added emphasis)
In other words, Bill Schmidt himself argues that by the end of grade 8 students in high achieving countries cover both Algebra 1 and Geometry, leaving grade 9 to Algebra 2. Contrast that with Common Core that expects Algebra 1 completion in grade 9 for students that don’t accelerate with extra work. In contrast, in the last decade, California, which benchmarked its standards to be six months behind the high achieving nations, tripled the number of students proficient in algebra 1 by 8th grade, and was actually a 5-6x increase for low-socio economic students and minorities. A stunning achievement which should be the model math standards Utah adopts. No need to enter “honors” programs at an early age. No need to double up on classes or take summer coursework. Just the standard path for students. Details here.
There is a lot of confusion in Utah when the state office of education says they adopted the “integrated” math method in order to be like the high achieving nations of the world, and then learns just how different Common Core and the integrated method are.
With permission I am reprinting this email from Ze’ev Wurman. Between 2007 and 2009, Ze’ev served as senior policy adviser in the office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development, in the U.S. Department of Education. He has been involved in numerous standards reviews and understands the issues of Common Core and its failure to match up to high achieving nations standards.
This is Ze’ev’s explanation of integrated math as it exists in other high achieving countries.
***************
First, I need to explain that what we call “integrated math” in the US is not at all like any math, “integrated” or not, they practice overseas. This is important because people peddling integrated math here claim that “this is what high achievers do overseas,” particularly for middle/high grades (7-9 there, 9-11 here).
What countries like Japan or Singapore do, is they spend a large part of the year (a semester, perhaps two trimesters) on teaching, say, algebra, and then they spend another large chunk (a semester or a trimester) on teaching, say, geometry. This way, the integrity and cohesion of the subject matter is preserved. Prerequisites are taught before they are needed, and generally things progress logically and hierarchically. Similarly, the geometry (or probability in higher grades) are mostly self-contained and may rely on what has been taught during the algebra period for the necessary prerequisite skills where needed. To Americans, used to teaching a full year of either algebra or geometry (those Carnegie Units still drive us!) this may seem “integrated.” Incidentally, in some instances there is even a separate teacher who teaches the algebra part of the year, versus another one who steps in to teach the geometry part.
But the American integrated program — and I am unaware of any exception — look very different. They are essentially programs that intermix the teaching of disparate content within the same units, or at most across short (4-6 weeks) units. The first type is often known as a Problem-Based Curriculum (or instruction) and works like this (think Connected or Investigations math): a “big” problem is posed that has multiple elements — geometry, calculations, perhaps a bit of graphing and/or algebra, perhaps a bit of probability or estimation. Then the class approaches the problem and as it “peels” it like an onion, the teacher is supposed to teach the kids the required knowledge as it becomes necessary. The idea behind it is that such problem-based instruction will offer a meaningful reason and justification to the students for the mathematical learning, rather than be taught as an “isolated skill” or “artificial (i.e., boring) non-real-life” problem. Unfortunately, it is essentially impossible to build a coherent curriculum around such large problems, because their needs for particular knowledge and skills do not follow any hierarchical and coherent progression. So you may need a bit about calculating a perimeter of complex figures, mixed with a bit about factorization and prime numbers (if the problem requires whole numbers as an answer) with some graphing thrown in. The result is that kids don’t develop knowledge and skills in a systematic and thoughtful manner, but rather learn disjointed bits and pieces of knowledge that rarely make sense or last for a long time. Integrated programs that are NOT problem-based have a different issue — they essentially interleave short units of different sub-disciplines, so teachers cannot build a solid base of the discipline’s body of knowledge, terms, and practices, before the class moves onto another sub-discipline that has a different set of terms and conventions. Again, think of the conventions in algebra versus geometry versus probability and stats. Consequently, no solid base of any discipline is developed because not enough time is spent to allow the student to internalize it over a lengthy period of time.
I am attaching a chart I collected from the 15 years of STAR administration. STAR offered both the course-based path through HS math, as well as an “integrated” one, and it had two separate sets of assessments for each path (same items, but partitioned differently across the years). As you can see, in the beginning about 25% of students were in integrated math in California. By 2013 there were fewer that 1.5% taking integrated. Nobody forced the school districts to abandon integrated — they just saw for themselves that kids in course-based math do much better, so they abandoned integrated in droves.
Wendy Hart is a school board member in Alpine School District. Wendy is an awesome board member who studies the laws and understands proper principles like schools exist to serve families. Here’s an FAQ on SAGE tests that she’s written up.
SAGE testing has begun in Alpine School District this week. It will continue off and on through May. The subjects being tested by SAGE are: Reading, Writing, Math, and Science. Because of concerns about SAGE testing, we have seen legislation, directives, forms, meetings, etc. I hope to help you make sense of it all. The most important thing to remember throughout this is that, as noted in state law, “A student’s parent or guardian is the primary person responsible for the education of the student, and the state is in a secondary and supportive role to the parent or guardian.”
First, the only thing required for opting out is written notification from you, the parent. You don’t need a particular form to comply with the legal requirements for opting out. Most districts, including Alpine, have a form and they will want you to sign it. You are not legally required to sign it. I would recommend that if you bring in your own letter, please do not have the principal sign something. You just need to communicate your wishes to the school. For the record, I have been opting my kids out of state testing since 2012. If you want to know more about why, please go here. More information can be found on the SAGE FAQ page.
Second, teachers and schools will NOT be penalized for students who are opted out. Last year, the law changed specifically stating “neither an LEA nor its employees are negatively impacted through school grading or employee evaluation due to a student not taking a test”. Prior to the passage of this law (the bill # was SB122), the State Office of Education (USOE) was penalizing teachers, schools, and students by giving students who opted out of end-of-year testing a 1 (the lowest possible score) to be used in calculating teacher and school grades. Parents, while always having the right to opt kids out, were concerned about the consequences to teachers and to schools. Since the legislature passed the laws that require school and teacher grading, it was their responsibility to fix the law to make sure schools and teachers were not penalized for parental actions on this level. The law did not grant parents the right to opt out, it merely clarified that they did have the right and that schools and teachers would not be ‘negatively impacted’. There are still many teachers who believe that they will be punished if you opt your kids out of testing. Please make sure to let them know about the law. The law was changed before teacher and school grades were calculated last year, so teachers have not been negatively impacted from kids opting out of SAGE testing*.
Third, the USOE has a contract with our testing vendor. Where in this contract does it say what the testing vendor is prohibited from doing with our children’s data? I haven’t found it.
The actual contract with American Institutes for Research (AIR), our testing vendor for SAGE, is a Purchase Order that references their original bid for services. Essentially, the contract is the bid. You can find a copy of the bid here. I have asked many people to indicate where in the bid we are assured that AIR will not be using behavioral questions and what prohibitions exist on them with regard to how they may use our children’s data. Most responses are, “It’s in the contract.” Because of parental concerns, last year, the State Board of Ed signed an addendum to our agreement with AIR, wherein, AIR specifically says they will not share personal data with any third-parties unless the USOE gives them permission. Better, but not good enough. The USOE also received a letter from AIR’s Executive Vice-President, indicating that they will not be using behavioral indicators or sharing of student data. Again, nice, but why not put it in a legally-binding document?
In our August Board Meeting (52 minutes into the Board Meeting**), Board Member Brian Halladay, who has been doing extensive research on AIR, listed over 20 entities that are subsidiary organizations of AIR. Subsidiary organizations, by definition, are not third-parties. That means these organizations are not prohibited from receiving or using our children’s data that is obtained through SAGE testing. In response to the concerns raised in that meeting, the Superintendent conversed with USOE Assistant Superintendent in charge of testing, Dr. Judy Park. Dr. Park and AIR Executive VP, Jon Cohen, responded to these concerns here and here. Dr. Park provided citations from the contract where data privacy is discussed. Unfortunately, those citations don’t really deal with prohibitions on AIR. Three of us on the board (Mr. Halladay, Mrs. Hill, and myself) responded to Dr. Park. You may read our letter here. In the letter, we raise additional concerns and also request validity and reliability information on the SAGE tests. The sections of the contract cited by Dr. Park do not prohibit AIR’s usage of our children’s data. The response we received was that legal counsel would be consulted. That was in September. We have not heard anything since.
Fourth, it is important that you know SAGE includes not just the end-of-year, or summative, testing. SAGE also includes interim and formative testing.
The districts and schools can decide to implement interim testing, which is a similar version of the summative testing. Like the summative tests, the questions and answers are not seen by the teachers and cannot be released to the public. The teachers do see scores, as well as information about individual standards and/or objectives and how individual students scored in those areas.
The formative tests, on the other hand, are tests or assignments that are generated or selected by the individual teachers. The teachers can selected items from within the SAGE test databank or they can create them, themselves. Teachers create, select, see, and determine the scoring for the formative tests. For more information on formative testing, this YouTube video is very helpful. Former director of testing at the USOE, John Jesse, indicated that they wanted to put everything into SAGE so that teachers would have no need of any additional testing program. The upside to teachers is evident. The upside to AIR? Lots more data. Even though the teachers create the items, the items, the answers, and your student’s responses are collected and stored by the SAGE software on AIR-maintained servers. So the lack of data privacy extends to not just the once-a-year tests, but to every activity that your kids participate in while logged on to the SAGE portal. It’s a goldmine for our friendly behavioral research organization, AIR.
Finally, on Feb. 2, 2015, the USOE sent a memo to all districts and charter schools stating that parents have no options for opting out of SAGE interim or formative testing. As a board, we had been debating back and forth about the interim and formative testing, and the district form was stated as covering all interim and summative SAGE testing. Dr. Henshaw indicated that parents should contact individual teachers to have their children excused from formative tests. With the advent of the USOE memo, interim and formative testing have now been deemed as ‘required.’ (Since interim testing is over for this year, it will not impact students in Alpine until next year.) The problem with this is that this wasn’t a directive from the State Board of Education. It wasn’t a change in the law. This was a memo from two state administrators by-passing every elected official in any capacity and indicating that parents have ‘no option’. Parents are now subject to the state for what goes on with their children. The state law could be interpreted as being silent on interim and formative testing. But being silent isn’t the same as forbidding a particular action. In a free society, the limitations are placed on government to protect individual rights. The USOE memo places restrictions on parents. In short, the state compels you to send your children to school. If you choose to avail yourself of the free, public education system provided by the State of Utah, you are obligated to pay for that, not just with your taxes, but with your children’s personal data. You have ‘no options’ to protect them. The Wise and Powerful Oz, um I mean, State Office of Education, has spoken.
So, what do you do? Don’t give up. Push back. Civil disobedience is a time-honored tradition in America. If you don’t want your kids taking the SAGE tests, make sure your teachers and principals know. They are caught between a rock and a hard place. Be empathetic, kind, and firm: your child will not be participating. If they are asked to participate, your child has been instructed to answer incorrectly and/or to call you to pick them up. Write letters to the State Board of Education (board@schools.utah.gov), and to your legislators, and the governor. Let your locally-elected board members know of your concerns. Local boards can communicate on your behalf, but we still have to administer the tests. Be kind, but firm. And, at the end of the day, do what is best for your kids. As we concluded in our letter to Dr. Park, “Just because parents choose to educate their children in our public school system, it does not mean that we, as a state government, are entitled to whatever information about their children we feel is necessary.”
*There is an argument to be made that only the most involved parents are opting their kids out. Since we know that the most involved parents usually have the kids who score the highest on standardized testing, there is a potential for a lower score due to that dynamic. However, there are also many parents of special ed kids who are opting out because they find the tests problematic for their kids. At the end of the day, the problem is the entire method of grading teachers and schools based on standardized tests. Contact your legislators and ask them to remove school and teacher grading from state law.
**Board Meeting Audio: 1. Click on the link 2. Scroll Down to ‘Additional Media’ and expand 3. Click on either the Study Session or Board Meeting audio, as listed.
The Federal Government is clear that they are “phasing out the authority of states” over standards and tests.
ALL they needed to accomplish their goal was: 1. States to voluntarily adopt national standards 2. States to voluntarily align their tests to the standards
We have done both.
Because you have joined in a resolution supporting state sovereignty with the Governor and legislature, I hope you will take seriously your elected responsibility to evaluate the wisdom of joining into the 3-year federal ESEA/NCLB Waiver, as well as your support for ESEA Reauthorization.
Please ask yourselves what will happen to Title 1 schools, and all schools, after the “phase out” is complete.
Why do both the NCLB Flexibility Waivers and the new ESEA Reauthorization mandate district public school closures and the expansion of Charter schools? Could it be legalized plunder? This entire saga has already played out in urban cities like Chicago where Rahm Emanuel and Arne Duncan have welcomed corporate-owned charters with open arms. The result has devastated whole cities and communities. Families are left to struggle when their neighborhood school is shut down because of “low test scores” (which is manufactured crisis, by the way) and no plan is set forth for where children are to go instead. Sure, they can try and get into a charter across town. But, then one sibling gets in and their brothers and sisters don’t. This creates fractured families and fractured communities. Please read the news stories out of Chicago.
SeattleEducation2010 said it best : “The phasing out of Dyett, one of 17 schools that the Board of Education voted to close or turn around last winter, highlights a process being played out across Chicago—the dismantling of neighborhood public schools, the ushering in of corporate-controlled charters and, in many cases, the gentrification of predominately African-American and Latino neighborhoods. Closing schools, like tearing down public housing, has proved an effective way for Chicago’s rich and powerful to push out and further segregate people of color.”
Please read Anita Hoge’s article below and evaluate if we are headed down the right path for Utah. Anita was recently shut out of testifying in Congress against the pending ESEA Reauthorization.
“As a retired educator (District Mathematics Coordinator, High School Principal, Assistant Principal, High School Math Instructor and College Professor with a Ph.D. in Educational Research and Measurement, an Ed.S. in Educational Administration and both M.A. and B.S. in Mathematics Education) I have struggled to get a handle on the Common Core controversy. I totally support federal educational standards which seems to be the problem the political right has with Common Core. With this said, I no longer support Common Core–not because of federal standards imposed on states (which I consider to be a good thing) but because the practices I have found associated with Common Core are educationally unsound. It appears that Common Core has been hijacked by the “Higher Order Thinking Skills” philosophy which stresses process over knowledge. When we constantly try to force students to think at levels of which they are incapable, we deprive them of the knowledge needed to develop those very higher level thinking skills. I first encountered this philosophy as a component of Dr. Maddeline Hunter’s “Program for Effective Teaching” (PET) right here in South Carolina. I was actually one of the first “Trainers” for this program. The program encouraged teachers to attempt stretching thought levels of students but did not neglect building a base of factual knowledge and then applying that data. Unfortunately, “higher order thinking skills” soon became the end all–be all of the program. Dr. Loren Anderson (USC) and others rewrote Bloom’s Taxonomy as a matrix instead of a heirarchy in an effort to address the abuses. But how does stressing higher order thinking skills deprive students? Piagetian Formal Operations is required for so called higher order thinking skills–yet of the thousands of studies done throughout the industrialized world, a population has never been found with more than 33% formal operators. Pushing higher order thinking skills neglects over two-thirds of our students. It is wishful thinking to try to push all of our students there. A companion to “higher order thinking skills” instruction is the “Discovery Method”–another nice idea we do not have time to implement. Suppose you want students to be able to make a rope. You could give each student a piece of rope and have them take it apart. The very brightest students (less than one-third) will will analyze the structure of the rope and might possibly be able to construct some rudimentary form of a rope. However, if you give each students threads of fiber and teach them (process) how to braid the threads into a rope, almost all of the students will be able to produce a functional rope. Education needs to transmit knowledge and process and then encourage application of that learning at the highest functional level of each student. I no longer see this happening as a part of “Common Core”.”
One more great teacher comment came in tonight from a Utah teacher:
“The main impact I am seeing with common core as a special educator of 31 years in Utah, is that we are trained to classify students with disabilities who are about 2 years behind in the curriculum. The irony being that we are not allowed to teach these students on their proper level of instruction according to the classification data or IEP. We are now told to teach on grade level for Sage testing. Daily, I see students who are distressed– trying to do work far beyond their current skills levels. We no longer fill in the gaps to bringing them up to speed over time, but force feed students material which increases levels of anxiety, poor behaviors and resistance to schooling in general. I see good kids pushed beyond their limits. Sadly, disabled students loose confidence, tiring of the endless testing and test prep. No research that I have ever seen shows that this is proper researched approach toward remediation. There is no off level testing now and the UAA is only allowed for the very severely disabled. No lower middle ground. I’m afraid we are teaching disabled children to hate school, loose confidence and give up. Initially special education was enacted as a way to get kids to like school; but we have now come full circle, becoming very top down in authority and organization.”
Who sets state law? Well, if you work at the USOE and can get a favorable writeup from an assistant attorney general, then you just run with it and tells schools that’s the law to go by. Legislature, schmedislature.
The last few days have seen a number of crazy things happen so let me try to put things into one place as a reference for parents and legislators that you can share this with.
Parent Heather Gardner opted her children out of tests but the school apparently is relying on an opinion letter from Assistant A.G. Chris Lacombe (below) which the State Office of Education is touting, and forced her child to take a DIBELS test. Here is a quote from an interview Heather did with Libertas Institute. Emphasis mine.
“Last week our school sent us a certified letter informing us that if our children did not participate in some of the tests and computer programs we had opted out of, that we were not welcome on campus—and that if our children came to school, they would be assessed. We were informed we could homeschool and dual enroll our child for part of the day, but that our children would still be assessed, even in subject areas they were not enrolled in.
This past Friday, my 3rd grader came home and informed me that her teacher had pulled her aside, singling her out, and told her that she had to take the DIBELS reading exam. Her classmates had already taken it earlier in the week. She protested and said that her parents didn’t want her taking the test. She refused the teacher’s demand. The teacher overrode her objection, telling her that by law she had to take it.
So you have a 3rd grader—my young daughter—being forced by the school to take a test when her parents have sent in a legal opt out letter. That’s the situation we’ve been put in.”
It appears we need some criminal penalties and terminations attached to school teachers, principals, district officials, and state officials who mess with parental rights, because where there is no penalty for violating the law, there is no law. This teacher went so far over and above the spirit and letter of the law she should be terminated, and unfortunately, she’s not the only teacher. There are numerous stories from around the state of teachers who have cajoled, manipulated, and lied to students to get them to take SAGE and other tests.
SB 122 from last year lets parents opt out of SAGE and other tests. Here’s a link.
86 (9) (a) Upon the written request of a student’s parent or guardian, an LEA shall excuse 87 the student from taking a test that is administered statewide or the National Assessment of 88 Educational Progress.
Note the words “test that is administered statewide.” Judy Park and Jo Ellen Shaeffer at the Utah State Office of Education wrote up a policy paper to interpret the law and then went to Asst. A.G. Chris Lacombe for his approval. Their policy relies on the fact that some tests are optional for schools to choose to use and therefore not officially a “statewide” test.
The letter states that schools can require students to take SAGE interim tests (which are not required by state law), among other tests like DIBELS, ACCESS, UAA, and others.
Per STATE LAW, parents have a “FUNDAMENTAL LIBERTY INTEREST” IN THE EDUCATION OF THEIR CHILDREN. The law further states that the role of schools is “SECONDARY AND SUPPORTIVE TO THE PRIMARY ROLE OF A PARENT.”
Per SB 122, AKA, THE LAW, parents have the right to opt their child out USING A DOCUMENT OF THEIR OWN CREATION. It’s THEIR WRITTEN REQUEST, not the school’s documentation.
From what I understand, schools in Alpine school district are now taking parents’ documents and stapling them to their own without requiring the parent to sign theirs. KUDOS TO ASD!
Another unfortunate event for one family was to have the school tell them they were dropping their child from honor’s classes because their child was opted out of SAGE tests. Schools MAY NOT drop your child from honors classes into regular classes because your child has opted out. In fact, the law says:
73 (6) (a) An LEA shall reasonably accommodate a parent’s or guardian’s written request 74 to place a student in a specialized class or an advanced course.
Why on earth would opting out negate your ability to have your child in an A/P or honors class?
What’s the big deal about tests? Why is the state so hot to force kids into testing that doesn’t measure anything of value to the children?
Please remember this: Those are your children and these tests aren’t for them, they are compliance tests for the schools.
Why are SAGE tests particularly bad for Charter schools? Charters scored poorly on SAGE exams and in order to show better will have to change their more traditional approach to math instruction, to more constructivist fuzzy methods in order to raise their school grades. It’s a brilliant plan. The people who want curriculum a certain way get it by giving the school a grade and letting them follow the same dumb “I’ve got to get an A” mentality we make kids jump through. It’s taken me decades to understand some of this nonsense. Anyone who doesn’t should read John Taylor Gatto’s book:
If you don’t understand what the problem is with these tests, it covers a broad spectrum including behavior tracking (which the publisher of SAGE, A.I.R., specializes in), massive anxiety for students who see things they have never been taught, data collection and loss of privacy, and storage of personal information on computers elsewhere in the country.
This first video is a MUST watch. Mary Calamia, a licensed clinical social worker, testifies about the effects of computer adaptive tests just like SAGE that are being given all over the country to students and what it’s doing to those children.
“Standardized Testing is not Teaching” by Dr. Chris Tienken
Legislatively, Senator Aaron Osmond emailed me stating that these points will be addressed in legislation this session to help clarify the spirit and letter of of last year’s law.
1) A parent is not required to meet with district or school personnel to opt out of any state mandated testing
2) A parent is not required to sign a district or school form to opt out of any state mandated testing (only a written notice to the school from the parent is required).
3) The opt out applies to both formative and summative assessments. (and hopefully interim and anything else a parent deems right)
What to do now:
1) Opt your children out. You can use our form or write your own on a napkin. By law you just have to provide notice.
2) Civil disobedience: pull your children out of school on test days. They are your kids. If the school doesn’t seem to want to honor your request, time to yank your kids out and be a parent with a spine.
3) Tell your legislators that you want penalties attached to the law that make it a criminal offense for any state worker to violate parental rights laws.
