All posts by Oak Norton

News

Change the purpose of education

2 Comments

Lynn Stoddard, a retired educator, had this article published in the Ogden Standard-Examiner. With permission from Lynn, I am reposting it here. Lynn makes several great points about the differences in children that make standardization of a classroom of children impossible.

********

It is a disturbing fact that Utah spends less per student in our public schools than any other state, but we spend more than the national average to incarcerate prisoners in jail.

We could reduce the tax burden for prisons and spend more for education, if nearly every child grew up with a firm resolve to be a “contributor” rather than a “burden” to society. Is this possible? The answer is yes, if we have the courage to change the purpose of public education.

At the present time, the main purpose of education is for students to be standardized, uniform or “common,” in a limited number of school subjects, mainly reading, writing and math.

Should this be the main purpose of education?

Do we really want students to be alike in knowledge and skills? A typical fifth- or sixth-grade class has students who range all the way from beginning readers, and a few at each grade level, all the way up to one or two who are reading at eleventh- or twelfth-grade level. Why and how would you standardize them?

If we were to change our main purpose, it would open the door to a new system of public education. The following major purpose would jump-start the transformation: Help children find their purposes for existing and develop the powers of human greatness to be special contributors to society.

What changes would be needed in public education for this objective to be exercised?

Visions of greatness

Perhaps the most important thing we can do for children is to help them see a vision of their God-given, unlimited potential — to help them see their purposes for existing to be joyful contributors to their world. One way to do this is to ask a child, “What do you want to be or do when you grow up?” “Who are your heroes?” “Why?” Later you can ask, “What do you need to do to get ready for your chosen vocation?

These kinds of questions start the wheels turning in the child’s mind — to begin the visioning process. Questions like these also leave the responsibility where it belongs — with the child.

It’s not only wrong, but harmful to hold teachers accountable for standardizing students. Perhaps the most degrading and dehumanizing activity in public schools is what I learned about last week. An elementary school principal told me the school is now starting three weeks of testing to see how well teachers are standardizing students.

He said these tests regulate everything teachers do during the school year. Teachers are angry and frustrated.

It is especially sad to learn the tests are developed to hold teachers accountable for making students alike in knowledge and skills at each grade level.

Being sensitive to each child’s unique needs is the highest form of respect and love. It’s this relationship that will help students make a commitment to be contributors to society.

When a child respects (loves) a teacher, that teacher’s words will often have a life-long impact. Words like, “Charles, I can see you becoming a great scientist some day,” or “Becky, you are so good at writing, it gives me goose bumps.” When we help children see themselves as contributors, we, ourselves, are then making a valuable contribution.

If we really want to end drop outs, bullying, and restore enthusiasm in teachers, parents and students, we will change the main purpose of education. If Utah continues down the path of standardizing students, education will continue to stagnate. Teachers will stay demoralized and student achievement will remain flat.

On the other hand, if we change the main purpose of education, there will be a renaissance of excitement, enthusiasm and creativity. The group I work with is promoting “educating for human greatness,” a concept that fosters positive human diversity, “phd,” advanced, different achievement for every child. It’s a concept that helps children learn reading, writing and math better, and not according to the conventional time table, but when the time is right for each one.

I urge school boards, teachers and parents to activate their integrity and tool-up for next year with an all-inclusive purpose for public education that honors a child’s agency, right and reasons to be unique and different from all others.

Lynn Stoddard, a retired educator, is the author of four books and many articles on how to improve public education. He lives in Farmington and can be contacted at lstrd@yahoo.com.

Answering Charges

A Reply to Superintendent Menlove

19 Comments

The State Superintendent recently responded to someone who had concerns about Common Core with this email:

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

Mrs. ______,

I understand you and others do not like Common Core.

Can you help me understand what you think our standards should be.  Should we have standards?  Do you think our standards should align with tests our children will take to determine college entrance and scholarship opportunities?  Do you think our standards should align with what the Utah System of Higher Education has determined our student need to be successful in college in Utah?   Which specific standards would you eliminate or change?  What standards are missing and need to be added?

I invite you and others concerned with Common Core to be part of the solution.

Martell Menlove

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

I’d like to respond to the Superintendent line by line to make sure I address each of these points.

Dr. Menlove,

>I understand you and others do not like Common Core.

Good start establishing common ground.

>Can you help me understand what you think our standards should be.

Certainly. They should be strong standards on par with what the best states in the country were using before Common Core. In fact, our Utah 2007 math standards were better than Common Core so I’d suggest we return to those or else consider using CA’s, MA’s, or IN’s pre-Common Core math standards which have been recognized as exceeding Common Core. Our Utah ELA standards weren’t great according to the Fordham Foundation, but Massachusetts had some great standards that Sandra Stotsky helped create. Did you know she volunteered to come to Utah for free and help us write the best standards in the country with the help and input of Utah teachers? That’s what I’d suggest we do for ELA. This combo would give Utah children a real advantage and we would actually have a Utah core that wasn’t a relabeling of Common Core.

>Should we have standards?

Is this meant to be thought-provoking or just an expression of frustration that a growing segment of the public is feeling disenfranchised and complaining to our public education leaders? Standards are important. Standardizing all students on the same standards at the same pace is destructive. If you’d like more information on this, please watch Sir Ken Robinson’s just released TED video on the problems of No Child Left Behind.

>Do you think our standards should align with tests our children will take to determine college entrance and scholarship opportunities?

What was wrong with the ACT, SAT and AP exams before they were being aligned(ACT, SAT and AP) to Common Core? Nobody complained about them not being aligned to our standards. Why start now? It just becomes a graduation test instead of a test of broader knowledge. If a student graduates from high school and gets A’s on their Common Core aligned computer adaptive tests, why do we even need the ACT, SAT, and AP exams? They’d be redundant and make students sit through the same exam content questions.

>Do you think our standards should align with what the Utah System of Higher Education has determined our student need to be successful in college in Utah?

To my knowledge, the USHE didn’t participate in the creation of Common Core. However, USHE professors did participate in the creation of our 2007 math standards. Why are you rejecting the work they did on the 2007 math standards in favor of what out-of-state special interests created in order to profit their companies?

>Which specific standards would you eliminate or change?

I’m hoping you can see the wisdom of not picking flecks of manure from chocolate chip cookies. The batch is tainted and it’s time for a batch made from fresh ingredients.

>What standards are missing and need to be added?

Dr. Menlove, what standards were missing in our 2007 math standards that needed to be added? Perhaps it was the ones the external reviewer Dr. Hung-Hsi Wu from Berkeley said needed to be modified that the USOE refused to fix to give us A rated standards. Still, we wound up with A- rated standards that the Fordham Foundation said are actually clearer than Common Core. So why did we need to change? Oh yeah, the feds offered us money if we’d switch and then didn’t give us any money when we complied. I guess that’s what happens when you gamble with the dealer…

>I invite you and others concerned with Common Core to be part of the solution.

We’ve actually given you a solution. Why do you resist higher standards for Utah children? Aren’t our children deserving of the very best education? With the rest of the country following mediocre standards, why do you not want Utah children to have the advantage of a better education? Why do you not listen to your constituents solutions? Wasn’t the state board who appointed you, also elected as watchdogs for the public? Why don’t they listen to the public? With 65.5% of GOP state delegates getting informed about Common Core and rejecting it, what is your plan to listen to the people and act on their solutions? Why is your solution for the public to just accept whatever you and the USOE decide is best for our children? That’s not an acceptable solution from a public servant.

Oak Norton

 

Educational

Sir Ken Robinson on Education’s Death Valley

2 Comments

If you’ve never watched a talk by Sir Ken Robinson, it’s a treat. He’s quite funny and raises some great points. I’ve had a couple people recommend watching this video recently, and I finally did and its fantastic. Ken points out the problems of No Child Left Behind, and without mentioning it, slams Common Core which suffers from an even greater standardization of children. He brings out the importance of individualizing education for children, or what I term an agency-based education approach.
This is a TED talk and lasts about 20 minutes.

News

Scandal in the USOE?

Leave a comment
Utah State Office of Education

Dr. David Wright at BYU has posted information on a website (http://utahmath.org) alleging what appears to be shocking events inside the Utah State Office of Education and reaching into multiple Utah universities.

In the 2012 legislative session, a Math Materials Access Improvement Grant was passed (SB 217) which required the State Board of Education to select a content developer to develop new math textbooks for 7th and 8th graders, and an adaptive assessment program. The state office wrote the Request for Proposal (RFP) differently than the grant directed. Two proposals were submitted, one from Dr. Jeffrey Humpherys and the BYU math department, and one from Dr. Hugo Rossi at the University of Utah.

According to Dr. Wright’s documentation, there were irregularities in the U of U application including plagiarism of content and missing items that should have been included per the RFP. At least 4 USOE employees were aware of the plagiarism: Diana Suddreth, Brenda Hales, Sydnee Dickson, and Michael Rigby (who apparently found the plagiarism). Both Suddreth and Dickson were on the review committee to select a grant winner. Emails show Diana Suddreth dismissed this saying,

“It also appears that the U is unaware of the copyright violations since they pulled their materials from sources that were labeled as licensed under Creative Commons. Therefore, I do not think this invalidates their proposal.”

Two weeks later the USOE awarded the grant to the U of U and two days after awarding them the grant, Diana wrote Dr. Rossi stating,

“Before you dive in too quickly, we need to have a conversation on why the request for a response about plagiarism was required.”

Clearly people at the USOE knew plagiarism was a problem. In fact, in some circles, individuals would say this type of charge results in “academic death.”

Several other important factors also came up. During the review of the grants, Suddreth informed Rossi that he should add Dr. David Wiley in BYU’s education department to the grant. Suddreth was a co-principal investigator with Wiley on another sizeable grant.

During the RFP review, Rossi offered an honorarium to Suddreth on a project he was working on. In an email he states,

“All your expenses in connection with this project will be covered by the USHE, including an honorarium of $300/day for participation in the meetings, if you are able to accept such an honorarium given your professional role.”

This offer seems highly inappropriate given that Suddreth would evaluate the RFP’s and participate in awarding the grant.

Dr. James Cangelosi at Utah State was one of the 5 grant reviewers, and on the same day the grant was awarded to the U of U, Suddreth was able to secure another $70,000 for Cangelosi’s UMEP program at USU. That has a tainted smell to it.

Is it any surprise that on May 1st of this year, Tami Pyfer on the State Board of Education sent letters of Common Core support from Dr. Rossi and Dr. Cangelosi to state legislators? These two professors are in the back pocket of the USOE after having received hundreds of thousands of dollars in grants and apparent favoritism.

In Cangelosi’s letter to legislators, he concludes by emphasizing “Utah’s Mathematics Common Core is another in our string of efforts to supplant ‘schoolmath’ with research-based mathematical pedagogy.” He’s flat out wrong. He’s one of the top constructivists in the state and he’s misinterpreted the standards to be a call for pedagogical reform in the direction of constructivism.

Bill McCallum, one of the lead authors of Common Core math standards, was specifically asked about this misinterpretation of pedagogy some are espousing and stated,

“I don’t see the standards as dictating any particular teaching method, but rather setting goals for student understanding. Different people have different ideas about what is the best method for achieving that understanding. That said, I think it’s pretty clear that classrooms implementing the standards should have some way of fostering understanding and reasoning, and classrooms where students are just sitting and listening are unlikely to achieve that.”

Dr. Wright has links to all the documents on his website (http://utahmath.org/) and concludes with 6 questions that the public deserves answers to.

1. Were any of the reviewers of the grant proposal conflicted? Were all of them qualified to review mathematics?
2. Did the U of U proposal contain plagiarized material?
3. Did Diana Suddreth direct the U of U to pick a principal investigator who was a co-principal investigator on a grant with Suddreth?
4. Did the sample lesson for the U of U contain “any text” (i.e., content exposition for the students) which was a requirement of the RFP?
5. Did the U of U grant proposal address “adaptive assessment” from the standard public education definition?
6. Did Hugo Rossi offer an honorarium to Diana Suddreth during the review period?

Each of those questions is hyperlinked to the relevant documents on Dr. Wright’s website (http://utahmath.org).

We expect public servants to use our tax dollars wisely. In this case, at a minimum, it would appear that the USOE violated the original instructions from the legislature. At the other extreme, they engaged in unethical and immoral behavior. The public deserves a full and thorough investigation to address these questions, perhaps in the education subcommittee of the legislature where the legislature can call on the USOE to account for their actions in going against the will of the legislature in the original grant.

I strongly encourage you to email State Superintendent Dr. Martell Menlove, point him to Dr. Wright’s website, and ask him to conduct a full and thorough public investigation of these questions. If true, everyone aware of the situation should be fired from the USOE, and all related parties outside the USOE who were involved in this should be forever banned from further grants and involvement with the state educational system.

Dr. Menlove can be emailed at Martell.Menlove@schools.utah.gov.

Please also copy your state school board member and legislators on that email as well. You can locate who your board member is and legislators at these urls.

http://le.utah.gov/GIS/findDistrict.jsp (find your legislators by your address)

http://www.schools.utah.gov/board/Board-Members/Find-Your-Board-Member.aspx (find your state board district here)

http://www.schools.utah.gov/board/Board-Members.aspx (look up your board member here)

You can also copy the 2 board of regents representatives on the state board to ensure they investigate and take action at the university level.

Teresa Theurer (teresatheurer1@gmail.com)

Marlin Jensen  (jensenmk@ldschurch.org)

 

News

Utah GOP Anti-Common Core Resolution PASSES

36 Comments

At the Utah GOP convention today, delegates passed a resolution to oppose Common Core with what’s been reported as a 65.5% YEA vote! That’s a huge margin on a resolution that the state office of education worked hard to oppose.

A big thank you to all volunteers who spent time passing out information this morning to help educate delegates, and a big thank you to the delegates who made the right choice.

Resolution on Common Core State Standards and Assessments

WHEREAS, The Common Core State Standards Initiative (“Common Core”), also known as “Utah’s Core,” [1] is not a Utah state standards initiative, but rather a set of inferior nationally-based standards and tests developed through a collaboration between two NGO’s (non-governmental organizations) and unelected boards and consortia from outside the state of Utah;[2] and,

WHEREAS, Common Core was financed with private foundation funds,[3] replacing the influence of our votes with wealth and influence to bypass our state legislature and impose control over Utah’s education standards and tests;[4] and,

WHEREAS, Common Core binds us to an established copyright over standards, from which we cannot subtract, replace or add to – beyond an additional 15%;[5] and,

WHEREAS, the General Educational Provisions Act [6] prohibits federal authority over curriculum and testing, yet the U.S. Department of Education’s “Cooperative Agreements”[7] confirm[8] Common Core’s test-building [9] and data collection[10] is federally managed;[11] and,

WHEREAS, “student behavior indicators”[12] – which include testing[13] for mental health, social and cultural (i.e. religious) habits and attitudes[14] and family status – are now being used for Common Core tests and assessments; and,

WHEREAS, Common Core violates Utah[15] state and federal privacy laws[16] by requiring the storage and sharing[17] of private[18] student[19] and family data without consent;[20] using a pre- school through post-graduate (P-20) tracking system and a federally-funded State Longitudinal Database (SLDS), creating surveillance capability[21] between states[22] and federal agencies,[23] in accordance with funding mandates;[24] and,

WHEREAS, Common Core violates constitutional[25] and statutory prohibitions by pressuring states to adopt the standards with financial incentives tied to President Obama’s Race to the Top, and if not adopted,  penalties[26] including[27] loss of funds; and,

WHEREAS, the federal[28] government is imposing yet another unfunded mandate on our State[29] for unproven[30] Common Core instruction[31], training and testing platforms, without any pledge of financial support from federal, state or local governments; and,

WHEREAS, unproven experiments[32] on our children, lacking empirical data[33] to support them, are removing traditional math, replacing classic literature[34] with increased technical reading[35], and prohibiting teachers from reviewing the tests to know what they ought to be teaching; and,

WHEREAS, this top-down process and the principles behind Common Core[36] undermine the teacher’s role[37] and do not support American and Republican ideals of local control,[38] parental choice[39] in education, standards and testing; and,

WHEREAS, the Republican National Committee recently passed a resolution opposing Common Core State Standards;

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that we call on the Governor[40] and the Utah State School Board to withdraw from, and we ask the Utah State Legislature to discontinue funding programs[41] in association with, The Common Core State Standards Initiative/Utah’s Core and any other alliance[42] that promotes and tests for un-American[43] and inferior,[44] curricula,[45] standards[46] and assessments; and,

THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a copy of this resolution shall be delivered to the Governor and the State legislature for executive and legislative action.

Submitted by State Delegate Cherilyn Eagar, Salt Lake County
State Delegate Co-Sponsors:  Wasatch – Alisa Ellis, Norman Durtschi, Anissa Wardell, Patricia Deden, Suzanne Pollard Juab – Stella Lightfoot Washington – Mary Burkett Box Elder Jeff Hardy Weber –  Lance Adams, Dan Deuel, Bea Cardwell, Clark Roberts, Laura Warburton, Gregory Martin, Becky Gerritsen Iron – Blake Cozzens Davis – Rod Arquette, Mark Arrington, Dale Hulse, Stephanie Terry, Kris Kimball, Phill Wright, Mark Cook, Christopher Snell, Bruce Bolingbroke, Barbara Derricott, Stephen P. Cloward, James Oldham, Elizabeth Mumford Summit – Jacqueline Smith Salt Lake – JaKell Sullivan, Jennifer Jensen, Maryann Christensen, Laureen Simper, Larry Jensen, Lisa Cummins, John M. Knab, Scott Miller, Rhonda Hair, Phoenix Roberts, Eric Fowler, Tana Allen, Chelsea Woodruff, Jennifer Jensen, Janalee Tobias, Kendall Springer, Kathryn Gritton, Brian Gallagher, Brent Maxwell, Rebecca Akester, Kurt Jaussi, Joseph Darger Utah – Gayle Ruzicka, Kristen Chevrier; Rod Mann, Larry Cerenzie, Clark Parker, Nancy Jex, Marie Nuccitelli, Amelia Powers, Brandon Watters, Barbara H. Ward, William C. Lee, Heather Williamson, Darren Rollins, Peter Morkel, Lisa Baldwin, Don Carlos Davies, Todd Seager, Rhonda Wilkinson, Alyson Williams, Sherilyn Colby, Diana Ballard, Delvon Bouwhuis, Mike Bready, Richard Jaussi, Tamara Atkin, Jamie Towse, Julie Blaney, Kent Besaw, Kevin Braddy

School Board-Legislative Endorsers: Congressman Jason Chaffetz; State Representatives Jake Anderegg, Brian Greene, Keith Grover, Mike Kennedy, David Lifferth, Curt Oda, Marc Roberts; State Senators Margaret Dayton, Mark Madsen, Stuart Reid; Curt Bramble School Board Members Joyce Sudweeks, (Piute), Peter Cannon (Davis), Brian Halladay, Wendy Hart, Paula Hill (Alpine)

 

 

[1] http://www.corestandards.org/terms-of-use

[2] http://senatedist23.wordpress.com/2012/07/18/common-core-memo-from-judge-norman-h-jackson/

[3] http://www.gatesfoundation.org/Media-Center/Press-Releases/2010/06/National-Governors-Association-and-State-Education-Chiefs-Launch-Common-State-Academic-Standards

[4] http://www.schools.utah.gov/arra/Uses/Utah-Race-to-the-Top-Application.aspx

[5] A State may supplement the common standards with additional standards, provided that the additional standards do not exceed 15 percent of the State’s total standards for that content area – http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/executive-summary.pdf

[6] “No provision of any applicable program shall be construed to authorize any department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States to exercise any direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum, program of instruction, administration, or personnel of any educational institution, school, or school system, or over the selection of library resources, textbooks, or other printed or published instructional materials by any educational institution or school system…” – General Educational Provisions Act

[7] http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop-assessment/sbac-cooperative-agreement.pdf

[8] http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop-assessment/performance.html

[9] http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop-assessment/performance.html

[10] http://nces.ed.gov/forum/datamodel/information/aboutThe.aspx

[11] http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/09/23/remarks-president-no-child-left-behind-flexibility

[12] http://le.utah.gov/~2012/bills/hbillenr/hb0015.htm

[13] https://www.utahnsagainstcommoncore.com/dr-thompsons-letter-to-superintendent-menlove/

[14] http://www.air.org/about/?fa=viewContent&content_id=96

[15] http://le.utah.gov/code/TITLE53A/htm/53A13_030100.htm

[16] http://epic.org/apa/ferpa/EPIC-ED-FERPA-MSJ.pdf

[17] http://www2.ed.gov/about/inits/ed/edfacts/index.html

[18] http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/stateanalysis/states/UT/

[19] http://nces.ed.gov/programs/slds/state.asp?stateabbr=UT

[20] http://whatiscommoncore.wordpress.com/2012/07/28/usoe-the-answer-is-no-can-a-student-attend-public-school-without-being-p-20slds-tracked/

[21] http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/01/19/unlocking-power-education-data-all-americans

[22] http://siec.utah.gov/

[23] http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/inside-school-research/2012/07/ed_urges_states_to_make_data_s.html

[24] http://www.ed.gov/recovery

[25] http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/tenth_amendment

[26] http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/blueprint/publication_pg4.html

[27] http://dianeravitch.net/2012/12/27/teacher-common-core-harms-my-title-i-students/

[28] http://www.ed.gov/news/speeches/vision-education-reform-united-states-secretary-arne-duncans-remarks-united-nations-ed

[29] http://www2.ed.gov/policy/eseaflex/ut.pdf

[30] http://www.aasa.org/uploadedfiles/publications/newsletters/jsp_winter2011.final.pdf

[31] http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2011/04/27/30pearson.h30.html

[32] http://www.uaedreform.org/wp-content/uploads/2000/01/Stotsky-Invited-Testimony-for-Kansas-on-Common-Core.pdf

[33] http://greatlakescenter.org/docs/Policy_Briefs/Research-Based-Options/02-Mathis_CommonCore.pdf

[34]  http://heinemann.com/shared/onlineresources%5CE02123%5CNewkirk_Speaking_Back_to_the_Common_Core.pdf

[35] http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/RI/11-12

[36] http://www2.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/eec/equity-excellence-commission-report.pdf

[37] http://zhaolearning.com/2013/01/17/more-questions-about-the-common-core-response-to-marc-tucker/

[38] http://www.k12innovation.com/Manifesto/_V2_Home.html

[39] http://aclj.org/education/parental-rights-in-education

[40] http://www.utah.gov/governor/news_media/article.html?article=7433

[41] http://www.prosperity2020.com/2011/07/27/a-focus-on-the-basics/

[42] http://www.utahdataalliance.org/

[43] http://house.michigan.gov/sessiondocs/2013-2014/testimony/Committee223-3-20-2013-6.pdf

[44] http://www.city-journal.org/2012/22_3_massachusetts-education.html

[45] http://hoosiersagainstcommoncore.com/james-milgram-testimony-to-the-indiana-senate-committee/

[46] http://www.uaedreform.org/wp-content/uploads/2000/01/Arkansas-Testimony-2013.pdf

Concerns

Clinical Mental Health Therapist Interviewed

6 Comments

After seeing the disturbing video of what the Utah State Office of Education has recommended for use in ELA 1st grade classrooms, Joan Landes, a masters level Clinical Mental Health Therapist licensed in the state of Utah, contacted us with some concerns. In this video she shares them with us. The people displayed at the bottom of the video are from left to right, Alisa Ellis, Christel Swasey, Joan Landes, and Renee Braddy.

Concerns

What is the problem with Common Core math in Utah? What is the solution?

6 Comments

First, a teacher comment we received this week:

“It just seems like a lose-lose all the way around. 

It may interest you to know that all of us math teachers got an e-mail from Diana Suddreth (state math curriculum rep) about the attack that cc has come under in our state government. The e-mail was saying how concerned she was that the state reps are starting to listen to the parents and was asking for teachers state-wide to start speaking up for the core and defend it to our reps to let them know how great it is. 

We here at ____________ got that e-mail and laughed out loud because it would seem a little funny to defend it when we’re on the side of the parents…

We have a storage room full of old Alg, Alg2, and Geometry textbooks that sit no longer in use because of cc.”

I want to be very clear about something right from the start. The anti-Common Core movement is not just about the standards. It’s about the entire nationalization/globalization agenda that goes along with it. However, this article serves to show the weakness of the Common Core math standards themselves and what it means for Utah students.

In 2007, Utah adopted new standards which were rated an A- by the Fordham Foundation. This was a big improvement over our prior standards which Fordham rated a D. They later rated the Common Core math standards an A- after receiving several hundred thousand dollars from the Gates Foundation to do a review. Money talks. The Gates Foundation is very interested in getting everyone on these standards, and so is the federal government. If you don’t know the connections, watch this video. In their analysis comparing Utah’s math standards and Common Core, they stated:

The Bottom Line

With some minor differences, Common Core and Utah both cover the essential content for a rigorous, K-12 mathematics program. Utah’s standards are briefly stated and usually clear, making them easier to read and follow than Common Core. In addition, the high school content is organized so that standards addressing specific topics, such as quadratic functions, are grouped together in a mathematically coherent way. The organization of the Common Core is more difficult to navigate, in part because standards dealing with related topics sometimes appear separately rather than together.

The chief weakness in Utah’s standards stems from the lack of specific content expectations in the development of arithmetic, and in the failure to make arithmetic a focus in the appropriate grades. Common Core provides admirable focus and explicitly requires standard methods and procedures, enhancements that would benefit Utah’s standards.

In other words, our 2007 standards were pretty good and could have used a little tweaking to make them stronger. If the USOE had actually implemented the external reviewer’s suggestions, we would probably have had some of the very best standards in America.  Dr. Hung-Hsi Wu, math professor at Berkeley and Utah’s external reviewer of the 2007 standards, was shocked months after reviewing the final draft of our standards, that the USOE had failed to implement any of his recommendations. Commenting to the USOE he wrote:

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

What followed was a list of several critical items that should have been included but the USOE left out. Why did they leave them out? It’s unknown for certain, but it is known that they hated the fact that we succeeded in making them raise Utah’s then D-rated standards. Standards are not a priority for the USOE, getting federal money was the driving incentive for applying for Race to the Top money where we agreed to adopt new untested Common Core standards, sight-unseen.

Dr. David Wright in the math department at BYU, was one of the few mathematicians that worked on the Utah 2007 math standards. I recently corresponded with him comparing where Utah was at with those standards, and where we are now with Common Core.

Under the 2007 standards, most students would take the following schedule of classes:

7th grade: pre-algebra
8th grade: algebra 1
9th grade: geometry
10th grade: algebra 2
11th grade: pre-calculus
12th grade: calculus

Some students who are well prepared could take algebra in 7th grade allowing them to accelerate. Some students, myself included when I was younger, double up and take geometry and algebra 2 together in order to accelerate. That option is no longer possible under the new integrated approach to Common Core.

Under the new Common Core standards, students get an integrated approach to math meaning there are no longer discrete years of math, but a blend of subject matter.

Math 7 (7th grade): contains some pre-algebra/algebra
Math 8 (8th grade): contains some algebra
Secondary Math 1 (9th grade): Finish some of algebra 1 and some geometry
Secondary Math 2 (10th grade): Finish algebra 1 and some Geometry and some algebra 2
Secondary Math 3 (11th grade): Finish algebra 2, geometry and some Pre-Calculus
AP Calculus: It is the hope of the USOE that students will be prepared for AP calculus without a year of pre-calculus. In reality, many students will struggle without precalculus.

According to Dr. Wright: “If you are not in honors Math 1 by ninth grade, the USOE does not see you prepared for calculus.  Many students who take the honors Math 1, Math 2, and Math 3 would still be better off in pre-calculus instead of calculus because their algebra skills will not be good enough.”

Some students will be able to take Math 1 in 8th grade, if they accelerated early, but for most students they will either have to skip pre-calculus to take calculus in 12th grade, or take pre-calculus in 12th grade and wait till college for an authentic calculus course. Honors students get a little more content depth but no real acceleration to advance faster.

The problems of Common Core math in Utah are two-fold.

1) In spite of the Gates influenced Fordham grade of A-, Common Core sets the United States back from where we should be. The Common Core proponents used to tout how the standards were internationally benchmarked. That’s been proven false and those statements removed. Dr. Jim Milgram, Stanford math professor and the only professional mathematician on the validation committee, has written standards and worked with international standards for many years. Here are a couple of comments from him:

“The Common Core standards claim to be ‘benchmarked against the international standards’ but this phrase is meaningless. They are actually two or more years behind international expectations by eighth grade, and only fall further behind as they talk about grades 8-12. Indeed, they don’t even fully cover the material in a solid geometry course, or in the second year algebra course.”

“While the difference between these standards and those of the top states at the end of eighth grade is perhaps somewhat more than one year, the difference is more like two years when compared to the expectations of the high-achieving countries — particularly most of the nations of East Asia.”

2) The USOE is constructivist oriented. They told Utahns that we would have portability of students with other states as a feature of Common Core, but then adopted a different schedule of learning which will not allow for it. They did this to implement constructivist math across the state. Trainings by the USOE for teachers have included the nonsense that students don’t need to learn their times tables. Good teachers will ignore that, but the fact is, the USOE actively looks to promote this philosophy in their teacher training.

Teacher comments from trainings

USOE constructivist curriculum on video: which do you want for your child?

The bottom line is, Common Core math is not internationally benchmarked, not going to prepare as many children for an authentic calculus class by the end of high school as our 2007 standards would, not allow for portability of students with other states because only Vermont adopted the integrated method with Utah, and the push for constructivism will further damage our children’s math skills and thinking. The best thing Utah could do is immediately go back to our 2007 standards, and implement the changes suggested by Dr. Wu, the external reviewer. Readopting those standards would be superior to Common Core and they would be honest Utah math standards.