Scott Shirley wrote this article for the Rexburg Standard Journal which a friend pointed me to.

**********

Fire, Aim, Ready for Common Core

As a boy I remember watching my father target practice. He would make himself ready with the proper stance, even to the point of steadying his breath. Aiming was critical. The slightest adjustment, up or down, made a huge difference. At just the right time he would pull the trigger. Ready, aim, fire. We still have the trophies he won.

Common Core and Obama Care (Affordable Health Care) have something in common in terms of preparation. It was the opinion of politicians that something needed to be done regarding health care. A document was drafted. “What’s in it?” the American people asked. “Trust us. We need to implement it in order to fully understand.” Fire, aim, ready.

Common Core State Standards followed similar steps. I have searched for any formal study, one that was not funded by those who stood to gain economically, that shows nationally mandated education standards are beneficial. Common sense would suggest they should, yet if formal studies, conducted by reputable and respected unbiased institutions exist, showing significant benefits, help me find them, and I will be content to follow the crowd. It appears there was no “ready.”

It is politically popular to say that education in Idaho needs reform. I invite readers to check for themselves in regard to proficiency scores of their local schools. Compare them with averages across the state of Idaho, and then compare them with national averages. You may or may not be surprised. Before believing educational statistics quoted by politicians, ask them to show you the reputable study from which it came. We must know, before we aim, that we are focusing on the right target in the first place. Without proper study, or homework, we cannot really know.

I have been in education long enough to see educational program after program come and go (Does No Child Left Behind come to mind?). These programs were well intended (aim), but poorly researched (ready) and touted as “the answer,” thereby being mandated (fire). I am not opposed to standards of excellence. I want to know that my efforts are being made toward goals that have been researched with rigor, showing over time that significant student growth can be predicted based on solid evidence. Again, show me something other than studies made by those who stand to profit, and I will be content.

So, what do I suggest in the meantime? I believe true learning, learning that makes a difference, is based upon the relationship between teacher and student. Children will not remember which program was or was not implemented during their education, but they will remember how teachers made them feel, that they could develop a love of learning, that a world of opportunity lay ahead of them.

Watching my father target practice, and having him teach me as well, taught me practical lessons I have found useful in many areas throughout my life: Ready, aim, fire.

Two experts. The first is a mom, the second is a mom and child clinical psychologist. Common Core’s standards are developmentally inappropriate for young children. That’s one of the criticisms I’ve heard from multiple teachers in the younger grades.

This post was made on Facebook by Staci Tawbush about her experience with Common Core. Click her name to see the whole thread and other parent comments with similar frustrations.

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

I’m about to be controversial but it’s about damn time somebody be…For more than a year now I’ve talked about the effect that Common Core is having on my family and on my life in general – and what it’s doing to the morale of my children. CC has now been fully implemented. And just as other parents are starting to wake up – I’ve absolutely had all I can take!

We had another 3-hours-of -homework-night tonight. The kind of night I’ve told you all about. The kind of night some have called me a liar about.

Tonight, though, instead of taking a picture of the ridiculous math my child is being forced to do, I decided to take a picture of my child doing it. Call me insensitive, but I don’t care what you think. What I care about is my children. I see this on a regular basis and it’s time for others to see it, too… Because this is what Common Core really looks like.

This is Savannah. This is a 3rd grader at 10 o’clock on a Wednesday night literally crying over her homework. This is a child hungry for knowledge – a child who loves to learn. This is a child with a broken spirit. I didn’t have to take several pictures to capture one that happened to include a tear, because the tears were pouring down her face. This is a very smart kid in the midst of feeling like a failure.

So: To those of you who tell me Common Core is a good thing. To those of you who claim it’s no different than what children have always done. To those who speak against it but don’t act. To those without the spine to stand up against political pressure. To those in which CC has just become another political talking point. To those who think we need the money from the federal government to sustain AL education. And to those who had a chance to stop this and didn’t…

Tonight I’m mad at YOU.

Tonight you share blame in making a child feel stupid and her [single] mother feel like a disappointment.

And guess what? This happened all over the state tonight. Not just in my house. You had a hand in that, too.

Finally: To the warriors out there who’ve been fighting this as long (or longer) as I have. To the parents who just heard about CC yesterday. To the few politicians who refuse to back into the darkness. To the moms, dads, aunts, uncles, grandparents and friends who are seeing this everyday in your own home…

This is why we’re so passionate.

This is why we fight.

Fight On.

Second, this link will take you to an excellent article and presentation which I’ve embedded below. Dr. Megan Koschnick spoke at a Common Core conference at Notre Dame and does a fantastic job explaining child psychology and how Common Core is developmentally inappropriate for young children. It’s a very fast 25 minute presentation. I strongly encourage you to read or watch this.

http://educationviews.org/child-clinical-psychologist-common-core-harmful-to-children-dr-megan-koschnick-compiled-by-donna-garner-9-19-13/

Yesterday we received a couple reports that are just stunning.

Lunch Nazis

“Ok I am not happy. While speaking to my son today about school I always ask what they had for lunch. My son told me “the chicken sandwich.” He then added that he ate some carrots and oranges. So he mentioned that yesterday at school lunch they had breadsticks. He said he took a breadstick and was supposed to also get a chicken sandwich. When the lunch lady saw he had a breadstick she informed him that he could not have a bun on his chicken sandwich if he had the breadstick. Why?

because that is too much grain. ARE YOU KIDDING ME?! I am so tired of the government telling us what we can eat, and what my child can eat. It is a bun, a BUN for heavens sake. It was not like he asked for a extra brownie, cookie, or cake (which I believe is outlawed). I usually cook every night, I am not taking my kids to fast food. I try to be a responsible parent with what I feed my children. I try to prepare nutritious well balanced meals. Ask my children, at dinner I always tell them they have to take some vegetable and eat it. The son who was told he could not have a bun, has not had a soda pop or any carbonated drink since May. He drinks water. When will the government start regulating how much bread I eat? I do not blame the lunch lady, she was just following regulations handed down. Someone is going to hear from me.”

-Allyson Cragun

This reminds me of the story our of North Carolina from a few years ago where a mother’s child had his lunch confiscated (turkey sandwich, banana, apple juice, and potato chips) and given school chicken nuggets as a healthier option. Satirized here: http://www.proxyparenting.com/stop-politicizing-children-over-wise-food-policies/

Polyamorous Relationships, Courtesy of Weber State

Another parent writes that her senior is enrolled in Concurrent Enrollment English at Bountiful High School, through Weber State. Weber just assigned this article for the students to think about the “ethical and moral views of this lifestyle” and about whether “these groups constitute ‘families’…”  The parent complained to the principal who said, his “hands are tied because Weber State decides the curriculum.” Maybe Weber State needs their tax funding pulled to remind them about community standards, especially where it concerns minors. As one person put it, this is normalizing perversion.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/07/28/only-you-and-you-and-you.html

The education reform movement is big business. There are those around the country who are touted for their accomplishments in raising educational performance by things they have done. Among the reformers, Jeb Bush had some success with a school grading system which caused schools to put greater effort into raising standardized test scores. Seeing some success, Utah legislators passed a school grading scheme for use in Utah.

Another reform is that of computer adaptive testing (CAT) which was adopted in Utah a couple years ago in order to help show where students are deficient or advanced in their understanding of concepts. Initially I supported this because I thought this would finally show schools using real math would trounce schools using fuzzy math. After this was adopted, I learned that Common Core was going to require CATs. That was a huge red flag as I realized CATs were going to be hijacked and used as a compliance mechanism for Common Core.

So in spite of the fact that these ideas may have had some merit to begin with, the bottom line is, the Common Core assessments will now control teacher evaluations, school grading, and thus curriculum. Any idea behind these that might have been thought useful under one set of circumstances has been hijacked.

Where some positive outcome was seen in implementing computer adaptive testing, as well as a school grading system, both became requirements under Common Core and will now be enforced via the AIR/SAGE assessment system that our children are subject to under Common Core. This means that one test, largely under control by 2 federally funded consortia (PARCC and SBAC), with a review panel by the federal government, now controls how schools are graded, how teachers are assessed (and even transferred between schools to ensure fair distribution of ‘quality’ teachers), how students are assessed as “college and career ready”, and directly leads to the curriculum choices in the classroom so teachers and schools will optimize for success on the test. To anyone without their head in the sand, this is a clear federal takeover of education.

Here are two must read posts. The first is by Alpine School District member Wendy Hart where she calls for us to join a rally on Tuesday morning at the USBA (bring signs like “No School Grading tied to Common Core”. The second is a post she references by Autumn Cook about the new accountability system.

http://wendy4asd.blogspot.com/2013/08/no-man-can-serve-two-masters-school.html

http://alpineparentsociety.wordpress.com/2013/08/21/august-13-2013-board-study-session/

Last week on Glenn Beck’s Friday night show on Common Core, Orlean Koehle, one of the audience attendees and CA Eagle Forum President, held up a government manual with a picture that showed some devices for how the government is planning to monitor our children. I was able to locate that resource and found their reasons for it disturbing.

A few days ago I emailed out an interesting article titled “Student test scores show that ‘grit’ is more important than IQ”?  I find it a little coincidental that this government report is titled “Promoting Grit, Tenacity, and Perseverance: Critical Factors for Success in the 21^st Century.” It was published in February 2013.

http://www.ed.gov/edblogs/technology/files/2013/02/OET-Draft-Grit-Report-2-17-13.pdf

If you open up this government document (and I’d save a copy to your computer), and go to page 61 of the pdf (which is page 43 on the bottom of the page). Look at the chart on “observables” they are looking for. This is a fascinating chart that splits out several aspects of conscientiousness.

Scrolling forward a page, you can see 4 methods they plan to use to track these observable behaviors on our children. If you have time, read the few pages before the chart. This is all very disturbing and a massive violation of privacy.

The people who created this document (including people from the Gates Foundation), have the warped idea that children need their ideal set of core knowledge, and the most effective way to get it to those children is through the scientific method of a lab rat. Put the cheese (standardized test scores) over here, see how long it takes them to get to it and how can we experiment and improve the process.

From page 45 of the document, just after these devices are shown, comes this:

Methodological tradeoffs.

Measures of behavioral task performance hold strong promise for deepening the field’s understanding of the interactions among the cognitive and affective processes underlying grit. They are minimally “fakable” (Kyllonen, 2005) and typically do not “cue the intentions” of the teacher or researcher (Shute & Ventura, in press). They do not require participants to have fully developed verbal skills or be able to articulate their own internal processes. Micro-level indicators also have the potential to be seamlessly integrated into a learning environment, and indicators can provide measures of behavior in real time, making it possible to examine and address dynamic changes in student understanding (e.g., how goals and affect change over time in an activity) (U.S. Department of Education Office of Educational Technology, 2013; Woolf Et al. , 2009).

These methods are not, however, without their own set of challenges. It is important to recognize the immense effort that goes into interpreting the meaning of student log files, for example, before an intelligent tutor can be designed to “know ” what a student’s behavior means and be able to offer appropriate scaffolds or feedback. The research into the design of these systems involves multiple observations and/or interviews of students interacting with the learning environment, achieving agreement among raters about how to interpret student behaviors and using these findings to design the programs that support student learning (e.g., Baker et al., 2008).

What is the goal of this? If you can track someone’s behavior and learn these things about them, you can condition them in ways that are most effective toward the goals set by those who control the learning environment. They are being manipulated.

I encourage you to read this article by Anita Hoge entitled “MANIPULATING STUDENTS – REWARD AND PUNISHMENT.”

On a much more light note, you could read Orson Scott Card’s awesome book, Ender’s Game, which comes out in movie theaters this November, and deals with manipulation of children by conspiring adults.

We received two emails from concerned parents in Alpine School District. This isn’t necessarily directly related to Common Core, but it does relate to data tracking and privacy concerns.

“My granddaughter attends school in Alpine School District. She came home with a disclosure document from her junior high P.E. teacher that indicated that all student in the class would be required to wear heart monitors and if they didn’t it would affect their grade. Do you know anything about this?”

“My daughter attends school at _____,  in the Alpine School District. The school is requiring all students to wear heart monitors during gym class. I sent the gym teacher an email saying I do not want my daughter to be electronically monitored. The vice Principal responded with a letter saying that there is a firm expectation that all students comply, and the students grade will be affected by way of participation points. In researching this I found that other states implemented this and in the end the students ended up having to wear monitors even when at home. I do not want my daughter to be monitored in this way and I want to know my legal options. If you can help or know where I can get help, please contact me via email. Thank you for your time.”

I sent an email to some of the school board members and got this reply back.

“Parents have the right to opt their children out of all this database stuff: database monitoring (FitnessGram testing), heart monitoring, etc.  You are to simply send a note to the teacher and request an alternate assignment for this kind of thing.”

You should definitely ask your children about what’s happening in their classes. Be more involved than ever this year. You have to be vigilant and know who is teaching them and their philosophies. I know of two middle school teachers at different schools in Alpine district who have convinced children that communism isn’t really all that bad, and parents were unaware this was happening until after the fact. You need to know what is happening in the classroom and take a stand or pull your child out to homeschool for some or all of the classes. If you do a partial pull out it’s called dual-enrollment and that’s what I’m doing with one of my children that wants electives at the school but we don’t want her being taught Common Core math.

Here’s a fascinating infographic on homeschoolers you may be interested in.

http://www.tjed.org/2013/08/american-homeschoolers-measure/

Carie Valentine sent us this great email she sent to several Utah legislators pointing out inconsistencies in Utah education laws and agreed to let us post it.

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

Dear Elected Officials,

I have been doing some research on the laws as they relate to Common Core and have found, what appear to be, inconsistencies in the law.  Attached is a document that shows how SB271, SB175, and elements of Title 53A seem to be in conflict with one another.

Basically, SB271 states a school must have 95% participation in the SAGE testing(the new computer adaptive standardized testing) or receive a grade of F.  It also outlines the grading procedure for the school and says the scores will include non-proficient students which may have IEP accommodations.

SB175 states students whose parents opt them out of testing will receive a non-proficient score and it will affect the school’s grade.  It also says teacher’s will consider student’s SAGE tests in determining academic grades and advancement to the next grade level.  Yet, within SB175 and in Title 53A it says, “Nothing in this part shall be construed to mean or represented to require that graduation from a high school or promotion to another grade is in any way dependent upon successful performance of any test administered as a part of the testing program established under this part.”  In addition to the above items, Title 53A-13-101.2 says, ” (5) A student’s academic or citizenship performance may not be penalized by school officials for the exercise of a religious right or right of conscience in accordance with the provisions of this section.”  If a parent wants to opt their child out of the invasive computer adaptive testing they are acting under a right of conscience and therefore their child’s grades and advancement to the next grade level shouldn’t be penalized.  Which law overrides the other?  Either a parent has the right to opt their child out of the testing with no repercussions,  or they don’t.  I am not a lawyer so I could be off base here but it looks like a conflict.
SB175 also says a student with an IEP may make other arrangements for testing according to the student’s IEP.  This information needs to be shouted from the rooftops so that parents who have children with an IEP know they don’t have to subject them to the computer adaptive testing (SAGE).  One of the most disturbing parts of the computer adaptive testing is that the goal is to pull all students into it so there is no need for testing accommodations.  Children who struggle with testing issues should not be over looked simply because there is a new test in town.

In regards to the State School Board’s desire to launch a PR campaign for common core, Title 53 A-4-205 says the board

(i) may not:

(i) engage in lobbying activities;

(ii) attempt to influence legislation; or

(iii) participate in any campaign activity for or against:

(A) a political candidate; or

(B) an initiative, referendum, proposed constitutional amendment, bond, or any other ballot proposition submitted to the voters.

Common Core is an initiative and it certainly has laws dictating its implementation.  The board engaged in what they called educational meetings to introduce the computer adaptive testing they have contracted with American Institutes of Research to create.  I attended one of these meetings and found it to be replete with propaganda type points rather than a balanced approach to informing the public.  The most controversial parts of the testing were glossed over, lied about, or just omitted from the discussion.  The school board needs to be held accountable for breaking their own laws.  Will you hold them accountable?  Now, they are poised to begin a media PR blitz to “inform” the public about common core education reform and will, again, be in violation of this law.

Finally, Title 53A-11-1305 says the Board rules to ensure the protection of individual rights.  If this is the case, then they must uphold a parent’s rights to direct the education of their child(ren).   HB0015 line 59 which says the computer adaptive testing may include “the use of student behavior indicators in assessing student performance.” interferes with a parent’s right to protect their children from invasive, high stakes testing.  These tests are designed by a behavioral research company.  Judy Park said there will be absolutely no behavioral indicators in the tests but how are we to know that?  The tests are viewable by no one.  Not parents, not teachers, not administrators, no one.  The parent committee of 15 chosen to review the test questions will not even be seeing the test questions, just a version of them.  This parent committee isn’t even qualified to review a test such as this.  Psychometricians will be over seeing the scoring of the tests along with the algorithms created to analyze whatever data A.I.R. wants to analyze.

I have attached a document that has the webpages listed so this information can be double checked.  I would appreciate some contact on this issue.  I can come and meet you in person to review it or you can email me.  I will also accept phone calls.

Thank you,

Carie Valentine

Attachments:

Contradicting Laws

SB175 with amendments and Title 53A inclusions

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

Ed. Note: The USOE is notifying applicants who desire to be on the 15 parent review panel, that they must sign a non-disclosure agreement so concerns that arise may not be shared with anyone. This is not a review panel. It’s a rubber stamp and checkmark on a piece of paper to tell legislators that a parent panel has reviewed the test and it’s safe for kids to take.

This is the block of text Carie refers to above. It was recently found and shows administrative rules by the USOE which will interpret SB 175.  It is unknown at present if this is proposed language to be voted on by the board, if it has been voted, or if it doesn’t even have to be voted on by the board. The intent is clear. If you have a student in a public school, you may not opt your child out of SAGE/AIR testing without your child, the teacher, school, and you as a parent being punished. The child is punished by being forced to take the exam, the teacher and school because they must maintain 95% of students taking the exam or have the school receive a failing grade, and as parents if this is in high school and your child has straight A’s, a non-proficient score will mess with their GPA and transcript for college applications. So if you can’t opt-out, your child can walk-out. You the parent are in charge of your child’s education. Do what is best for your child.

164 (2)  the  parent  makes  a  written  request  consistent  with
165 LEA administrative timelines and procedures that the parent’s
166 student  not  be  tested.    Students  not  tested  due  to  parent
167 request  shall  receive  a  non-proficient  score  which  shall  be
168 used in school accountability calculations.

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

9/28/13 Addendum from Carie:

How Often Will the Tests Be Administered?

The state has identified three types of testing your students will participate in.  This information comes directly from their pamphlet.

The first type of tests are called summative assessments.  These will replace the end of year testing called the CRT’s  Utah students have taken for many years.  Students will be tested in English/Language Arts, Mathematics, and eventually Science.  It is my understanding the science portion of the common core standards have not been approved and so the science SAGE tests won’t be administered until they are finished.  A field test will be administered in the Spring of 2014 and the system is set to go fully operational in the Spring of 2015.

The Second type of tests are called Interim assessments.  “These tests are optional and can be administered in the fall and mid-year to evaluate student competence with the Utah Core Standards-which are Common Core Standards-in English/Language Arts, Mathematics, and Science.  Interim assessments will be psychometrically predictive of the summative assessment and utilize the same student interface and reporting system.”

What does this mean?  It means that students who are struggling or teachers who need to see where their class is may utilize these assessments at the beginning and middle of the school year to determine instruction.  This program is set to go live the Fall of 2014

The third type of tests are called Formative assessments.  “Formative assessment guides teacher’s day-to-day instruction.  Each student’s Formative SAGE results will link to instructional resources to help teachers target and individualize instruction.”

What does this mean?  This means that teachers have the potential to have testing done after every lesson they teach.  They can access the massive bank of common core aligned material online to use as instructional resources for struggling students or students that need additional help on a subject.

All of these assessments are matched to complement one another.  This testing is set to go online in the fall of 2013.

All of this means your child has the potential of participating in high stakes, computer adaptive testing, daily.  It won’t start out that way because it will take time for education reform of this magnitude to be developed but this will be the outcome once all the variables are in place for your children to have summative, interim, and formative assessments throughout their school year.  A tremendous amount of time is already spent preparing students for their standardized tests each year.  Imagine how much more time will be devoted to test preparation when all of the various SAGE tests come online.  The state school board has said teachers have complete creative control in their classrooms for how they want to teach to the standards, but with so much emphasis on testing, a teacher will have little room in his or her day to teach much more than to the test.

There is so much testing with common core, that a recommendation has been made in HB15 on lines 119-120 that “The State Board of Education shall consider administering the basic skills competency test on a Saturday to preserve instructional time.”