All posts by Oak Norton

Concerns, Reference

Why Constructivism and Direct Instruction will Damage Your Child’s Brain – Part 2

12 Comments

Read Part 1 of this 3 part article

In the Schools Today

2004 was my pivotal year. My oldest was in 3rd grade and I discovered that Alpine School District was no longer teaching the times tables or long division to children and hadn’t for at least 3 straight years. What in the world was happening?

Alpine and several other districts had partnered with BYU’s McKay School of Education under the leadership of John Goodlad in 1983, forming a Public School Partnership, and they were pushing an educational philosophy called constructivism. The basis of this theory is that knowledge is socially constructed, or in other words, a democratic approach to knowledge and morals. This moral relativism is at the heart of constructivism. Another notion is that when knowledge is constructed, it is retained better. That can be true, but it also means a tremendous loss of foundational knowledge that could have been obtained by someone with an efficient algorithm. Constructivism is heavy on group work, deemphasizing the individual and emphasizing the collective efforts of students who come up with “strategies” to approach problems. It is also called inquiry-based learning for the approach that students should inquire to learn. The process is also deemed more important than the result so students might get no right answers on an exam but still score high on the test for showing a lot of work.

Constructivists have a philosophical difference in opposition to Direct Instruction methods of teaching which comes out of the stimulus/response system of behavioral psychologists like B.F. Skinner. At the extreme, the Direct Instruction method of teaching can tend to not produce long term retention because it’s geared more toward telling a student exactly what must be learned, and then regurgitating it.

Project Follow Through Results
Project Follow Through Results – Click to Enlarge

Several years ago when I was pondering the lunacy promoted by Goodlad and embraced by seemingly intelligent adults in Alpine School District’s leadership, I came across Project Follow-Through. This was the largest education study ever performed. A billion dollars spent tracking about 170,000 students over decades of time to determine which educational model was most effective in teaching children. The results were stunningly clear. Constructivist math oriented programs like Investigations, Connected, and Interactive math used by Alpine School District were utter failures. Anyone with a shred of common sense knew that intuitively, but it was nice to see it confirmed in a government funded study. Direct Instruction crushed the competition. Naturally, sharing this with the ASD school board and administration had no effect to course correct their direction and do what was best for the children in the district because they were steeped in John Goodlad’s philosophy and regularly taught with him at his annual NNER conferences. Our superintendent even served on Goodlad’s NNER executive committee.

What I didn’t realize when I jumped into the math fight was that although these results were a stunning indictment of constructivism, they were also missing something important about Direct Instruction.

The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America

Charlotte Iserbyt was a senior policy adviser to President Reagan on education matters. She went to work at the Department of Education (DOE) and after discovering what they were up to, stayed after hours to copy and document what these people were doing to American children. Her work was later published as The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America. I strongly urge everyone reading this to go to her website and download and save a free copy of this PDF book to your hard drive (after you finish reading this article :)).

Deliberate Dumbing Down of AmericaWhile reading The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America (DDDoA), I came to realize that “Direct Instruction” is not the same thing as “direct instruction.” One is a program and the other is a method.

Siegfried Englemann created the DISTAR (Direct Instruction System for Teaching Arithmetic and Reading) program which followed a heavily scripted sequence where the teacher would read something to the children and get constant feedback to ensure they were on track and learning what they were supposed to. As seen in Project Follow Through, this method was vastly superior to constructivist philosophies, but it had its own drawbacks as well. Little case “direct instruction” was simply traditional educating and it was not part of the Project Follow Through study. Here’s a quote from DDDoA.

[Ed. Note: Although the evaluation of [Project] Follow Through cited some academic and self-esteem
gains at some Direct Instruction model sites, it would have been virtually impossible for these
gains not to have been made considering the models with which they were compared—the
non-academic focus of the “touchy-feely” open classroom. Had the Direct Instruction model
been in competition with a traditional phonics program which was not based on animal behavioral
psychology (“scientific, research-based”), it is most unlikely it would have been able to
point to any gains at all. Unsuspecting parents in the 1990s seeking more structured academic
education for their children than can be found in schools experimenting with constructivistic
developmental programs (whole language, etc.) are turning to DI, not realizing they are embracing
a method based on mastery learning and animal psychology.]

Charlotte’s lengthy book exposed all these educational fads and rackets. One paper she wrote concerned Reagan and the DOE contained this clip about John Goodlad. (emphasis mine)

One night, while looking for a typewriter ribbon, I noticed in the

corner of a storage room a box entitled “The Goodlad Study“. I just

about had a heart attack since I had been following this world famous

international change agent’s subversive activities for many

years, especially when I served as a local school board member

prior to going into the Department of Education. Much of the values

destroying curricula and school organizational restructuring

could be laid at his feet. This particular box held a gold mine of

information regarding the efforts of the tax-exempt foundations

and the federal government to implement the United Nations

agenda, to restructure American schools for global government. I

couldn’t believe what had landed in my lap! Four books, all published

by McGraw Hill, were commissioned for this Study. They were:

John Goodlad’s “A Place Called School”; Don Davies’ “Communities

and their Schools” which laid out the socialist/communitarian

agenda to be implemented in America through the schools, pointing

to communist countries as models; Jerome Hausman’s “Arts

and the Schools” which dealt with how to use the arts to change

students’ perceptions and values; and the worst one of all, James

Becker’s “Schooling for a Global Age” which contained the

Foreward by John Goodlad from which parents love to quote:

“Parents and the general public must be reached also.

Otherwise, children and youth enrolled in globally oriented

programs may find themselves in conflict with values

assumed in the home. And then the educational institution

frequently comes under scrutiny and must pull back.“

As an aside: when I returned home I called McGraw Hill to order the

books and was told they were not yet published but that they would

put me No. 1 on their list which they did. Later, when I checked

back with them, they said: “Don’t worry, Mrs. Iserbyt, we’ll get them

to you as soon as they are received; you are No. 1, even ahead of

each of the 50 Chief State School Officers.” That sure told me something

about how important these books were and exactly who would be

carrying out the radical agendas promoted in each one of them.

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

Continued in Part 3

Concerns, Reference

Why Constructivism and Direct Instruction will Damage Your Child’s Brain – Part 1

4 Comments

Sacrilege! Direct Instruction is bad??? By the end of this 3 part article I hope to explain what I mean by this before my homeschool and charter school friends storm the castle, though they do have something to ponder.

Background: What Motivates Us

I recently listened to a book on tape called “Drive,” by Daniel Pink. The book is about the science behind motivation. It’s a fascinating subject explaining the appropriateness of reward systems and what increases or decreases motivation. He says that what we really seek is autonomy, mastery, and purpose. When we are given high amounts of autonomy, the opportunity to perform challenging work at our level of competency so we experience growth, and have meaningful purpose behind what we are doing, we experience something called flow, a term coined by psychologist Mihály Csíkszentmihályi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_%28psychology%29) meaning focused motivation. When we are denied these 3 elements in various degrees, we do not gain the state of focus and concentration to maximize our performance. You need to understand this to understand one of the educational philosophies I’m going to discuss.

Everyone is motivated either intrinsically or extrinsically. We are also rewarded either intrinsically or extrinsically. You either get joy out of what you’re doing, or something external to you is your reward for doing it. What the studies show is that when extrinsic motivators are used incorrectly, it can destroy intrinsic motivation and damage that mechanism altogether. There are times when both can be used effectively, but when intrinsic motivation is key, such as in the area of education, then introducing extrinsic motivators can cause serious harm to the true long-term goals we have of children becoming life-time learners.

Here’s how it works. If someone is doing algorithmic work that could perhaps be automated and doesn’t require creative thinking, those actions can be motivated by a reward or incentive system where the person knows they will be rewarded for completing the task. For example, moving boxes from one side of a warehouse to the other or raking the leaves. These don’t require creative processes (under most circumstances) and so you can incentivize them.

However, as soon as you step into anything requiring thinking and creativity, to provide an extrinsic motivator actually decreases motivation and outcomes because what the individual could have done for intrinsic purposes has been made to appear to be work instead of play. Instead of striving for mastery for the challenge itself, the bribe/incentive/reward turns it into work. Once on that path, rewards motivate people to seek rewards. In studies mentioned in Daniel’s book, creative people are less creative when they know there is a reward in it for them as if doing the thing itself isn’t enough. For example, asking a child to read a book because it’s exciting and fun would turn into work for them if you offered them $10 to read it because they would begin to perceive that if you have to pay them to do it, you might be thinking they really won’t like it and must motivate them with money.

If you’d like to watch Daniel Pink’s TED talk on motivation, it’s highly worth watching: http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pink_on_motivation.html

A Little Education History

Now we need to lay a little education history framework before we get to the meat of what’s going on.

In the early 1800’s, the Prussian army was frustrated that its soldiers weren’t performing on the battlefields with precise order. They wanted to make sure that future soldiers didn’t have this problem so they implemented compulsory education on their children and began psychological approaches to education to create the desired result of obedient children that would do exactly as they wanted.

Hallmarks of this Prussian education system included compulsory attendance, national training for teachers, national testing for students, national curriculum for each grade, and mandatory kindergarten. The philosophy it was based in was that humans were scientific objects. There is only a body, brain, and nervous system. There is no God, and no spirit, so everything in this scientific object was subject to a stimulus/response system.

Horace Mann
Horace Mann

In the mid 1800’s, Horace Mann was trained at Leipzig university in this methodology and returned to America to implement it here. Up until this time, compulsory education was not used in America. When it was implemented, parents rose up to stop it and the militia was called out to force children to public schools until the practice became accepted. John Taylor Gatto talks about this in his acceptance speech when he was awarded the NY City Teacher of the Year award for the 3rd time. He also points out that prior to compulsory education, the literacy rate in Massachusetts was 98% and after compulsory education was implemented it dropped and has never exceeded 91% since then.

G. Stanley Hall was another trained in this philosophy at Leipzig and he was John Dewey’s mentor. In 1934, John Dewey became one of the original signatories of the humanist manifesto. The manifesto was a socialistic, atheistic, religious document pronouncing that there was no God or spirit and that man was to fare according to his capabilities. Throughout his life, Dewey sought to use the school system to implement collectivist philosophies on children in an attempt to have them lose individuality and promote socialism.

John Dewey
John Dewey

Dewey wrote, “children who know how to think for themselves spoil the harmony of the collective society which is coming, where everyone is interdependent.” (Human Events, 10/18/96)

He also wrote, “you can’t make socialists out of individualists.” (Gordon, What’s Happened To Our Schools? P. 16)

Another well known individual trained at Leipzig was Ivan Pavlov, famous for his bell ringing generating salivation in dogs. Introduce a stimulus and reward a proper response and these psychologists trained children the same way. To them, there was no such thing as children with divine potential and individual God-given talents and abilities, they were lumps of clay ready to be formed to whatever the teachers desired them to become, given the proper stimulus of course. Correction, Horace Mann referred to children as “wax,” not clay.

What did these psychologists want teachers to do to children? Dr. Chester M. Pierce, Harvard professor of education and psychiatry said this in this address to the Childhood International Education seminar in 1973.

“Every child in America entering school at the age of five is insane because he comes to school with certain allegiances to our founding fathers, toward our elected officials, toward his parents, toward a belief in a supernatural being, and toward the sovereignty of this nation as a separate entity. It’s up to you as teachers to make all these sick children well – by creating the international child of the future.”

Bloom's Taxonomy of Learning
Bloom’s Taxonomy of Learning

Benjamin Bloom, another psychologist and educator, most famous for his work on his hierarchy of learning, said we needed to move children toward higher order thinking and defined it like this.

“…a student attains ‘higher order thinking’ when he no longer believes in right or wrong. A large part of what we call good teaching is a teacher´s ability to obtain affective objectives by challenging the student’s fixed beliefs. …a large part of what we call teaching is that the teacher should be able to use education to reorganize a child’s thoughts, attitudes, and feelings.”

So we can immediately see that those who strongly influence the education system are in many cases corrupt godless individuals who desire nothing more than to take children out of the home at young ages and reshape their belief system.

Last year the Texas Republican Party amended their platform to include this new item, demonstrating that they understood this issue very clearly.

“Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.”

Oh, but all is well in Utah, right?

John Goodlad
John Goodlad

John Goodlad is the modern era disciple of John Dewey. He’s an atheist, socialist, humanist, anti-family, pro-social justice educator that is one of the premier voices listened to in numerous education departments across the country including BYU’s McKay School of Education. Go figure. Many quotes could be shared from Goodlad but I’ll just share a couple.

“Most youth still hold the same values of their parents…if we do not alter this pattern, if we don’t resocialize, our system will decay.” – John Goodlad, Schooling for the Future, Issue #9, 1971

“Public education has served as a check on the power of parents, and this is another powerful reason for maintaining it.”
– John Goodlad, Developing Democratic Character in the Young, pg. 165

With people like this influencing the system, is it any wonder that public education is in decay? The goal these people are working toward is socialization, and a disruption and overturning of family values.

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

Continued in Part 2

Concerns

Teacher Survey Results

10 Comments

Here are the results of the teacher survey from the past week asking Utah teachers to weigh in on the problems with Common Core. Obviously, most teachers do not wish to have their names appear publicly. These appear in the order they were received. Click here for Part 2 of these comments.

CommentGrade TaughtIf AdministratorCountyName
Common core was forced down our neck with no input.  As a teacher we have to like it or a jobs are at stake.  It takes the ability away from teachers to actual teach.  Teachers are being threatened with lack of funds which in turn means lack of money= less teachers8thUtah
I am most concerned about who has put together the common core.  They have started with math and reading but have designs to push their socialist agenda onto our children when they add the science and social studies components of common core.  The math standards teach a  “fuzzy math” that makes it hard for parents to be able to assist their children with math, making the parents seem weak to the children. Children then learn to trust the school more than home. There are no benefits to the “new” math, in fact it slows the learning by teaching children four or more ways to get the same answer.Assistant PrincipalSalt Lake County
I oppose the Common Core, not because I think in theory that it is a bad idea, but because I believe that it has many flaws in its approach and implementation.High school juniors and seniors.
It is a big mistake to call it common but then be the maverick state to not follow the traditional courses in math. Following the international model is sure to mean we are last on the list to have publishers and others develop worthwhile materials. I don’t have time to develop high quality materials and teach also.  Further, the CC is not really new and improved. It is a revamping of the investigation philosophies some have been trying to push for years now. Students need quality instruction, not meaningless trial and error.junior highUtah
I oppose CCSS because they are imposed on teachers to impose on students rather than encouraging teachers to address the needs of each student and respond creatively to those needs.Davis County
Greater centralization will result in inefficiency and waste. It will result in poorer student performance.  It will lead to encroachment on the freedom to homeschool. It will create databases which are expensive and dangerous to personal liberty. The standards do not promote individuality, liberty, or excellence or greatness in education. The centralization will make it harder for parents to become involved, so less will become involved.  That will hurt the education of children more than anything else.Homeschool Co-op ages 11-14Utah CountyCody Nelson
I think I do my best teaching when I can create the way the content is presented.  Common Core standards are so specific that there is little leeway to do that.3rdCache
It was presented dishonestly to us, we had no say, it is confusing to parents and to me, it promotes a certain political agenda, it is dumbing the kids down more than they already are because of ‘no child left behind’, it takes away states control, it is not working…my kids are NOT learning necessary tools to succeed6salt lake
I opposed Common Core Standards and assessments because they are poorly considered.  The language standard is based upon whole language methods which have a long history of being ineffective and even harmful to developing language skills.  The math standards are likewise proven faulty.  Other standards in Literature, Handwriting, etc. are not based upon sound reasoning.  I fully accept that individuals may use these systems if they disagree with me.  I do not see that one viewpoint should be imposed universally.  The decision about education content, standards and methods would be better accomplished on a more localized and individual level than it is now, not on a more centrist level.  Government agencies have not been demonstrated to manage education well and have no right engaging in the kind of tracking, evaluation and directing of students that has been proposed.I have taught preschool, Kindergarten and all elementary levels.Utah County
I oppose central control, period. I cannot imagine ANY group, committee, etc., however benign, making decisions for the entire nation. Local control should be just that, local.junior high, retiredUtah County
It takes away our local and state rights to decide what our children will be taught.  I believe it is the key lynchpin in turning our constitutional republic into a managed economy (socialist or communist government)!5Utah
Reading under the Common Core is very boring for both the student and the teacher.  The students read for a few minutes and then are tested (constantly).  I love reading but I hate this approach.  There is no chance to get into the story and really enjoy learning to read.  Math has been made into a complicated mess, for example rather than carry the 10 over into the 10’s column, the student must rearrange the numbers into 10’s and ones and then add.  This confuses the student and isn’t necessary.  I especially hate that the testing is based completely on the Common Core.Retired fourth grade teacherMillardBarbara Nickle
privacy issues; too much testing; too much indoctrination; math is arbitrary and haphazard in intro of ideas and execution; much curriculum is age inappropriate-some too advanced, some too easy, again it is haphazardseveralWeber
These are beyond Federal level standards and being used as a stepping stone for international standards. Common Core is another move toward creating a global work force that is not liberty-minded. It moves the role of family, parents and local community away from the individual.12th Grade, High SchoolUtah
The federal government should have no role in public education. The larger the institution, the less voice individual parents and teachers have.UniversityDavisVincent Bates
1. Less classic literature.  2. Nontraditional math 3. No voice for teachers  4. Constitution violated4thWasatch
It dumbs kids down, puts us behind schedule where we were, removes local control, eliminates creativity, omits important curriculum like cursive writing & classic literature, it forces “fuzzy math” based on common consent as opposed to fact-based math on individual merit, it was signed onto outside of proper legislative procedures & without public input. It is Socialized education, one size fits all and it doesn’t fit. It will only serve to harm our kids’ education, not improve it.K – 5Davis
I oppose MANY things prior to this and this is just another BIG step in the wrong direction.  I’m pretty radical.  I don’t believe our neighborhood schools need district people at all.  We all have computers now and these positions are outdated.  I get more help from colleagues and think ONE each year should get the SALARY of a principal and rotate WHO does that from year to year.  NO district “help” – all they do is get in the way and BOTHER teachers in the end.  They’ve become a pain.  We can find all the conferences we want to go to.  Just give us THEIR paycheck money and take away ANOTHER big, growing, unnecessary “gone wild” institution.  I’ve read enough on my own about common core and they are the ones being SHEEP and forcing this on teachers who know their OWN LESSONS do a better job – PERIOD.Retired – taught special education and quit because I couldn’t STAND being in the schools and being ordered around like a peon.  If they continue this way – they need high school grads to take our place.  All that education is hardly needed with dictatorsCanyons DistrictSusan Wilcox
The loss of literature and creative writing as part of the Language Arts core curriculum, and the infusion of intrusive questioning about our children’s personal lives under the guise of demanding them to write argument papers exclusively.7-9Utah
These so called standards actually lower educational standards and subvert fact based curriculum by rewriting traditional information to a socialist agenda and manipulating test answers to that end.SixthWeber
It gives too much control to the federal government and makes it virtually impossible to make changes locally when needed.SecondSalt Lake County
I am a second grade teacher who is now being forced to teach the Common Core.  It is so frustrating. This was forced upon us with no preparation. We meet every Friday afternoon to learn about the Common Core yet we do not get to question it.  Some questions we have is the flow of the Common Core.  We are told we are not to review. You only teach your standards so if a child is not ready for that standard they do not get to review the standard.  An example is Money is only taught in the second grade.  If a student is not ready or does not understand the concept they are not taught money again in any other grade level.  Regrouping is taught in grade 2 which some children are not developmentally ready to understand.  These standards have ignored the Development of children through Piaget.  For example the writing curriculum is too hard for some students.  Why are we teaching kindergarten students how to write a research paper..they are not ready for this.  Let’s focus on standards they are ready for..This is ridiculous.Second
Federal top down hog wash written by pseudo experts whose religion is socializing and progressivizing our schools and our children.University online and in the Utah corrections system.Director of education and trainingSalt Lake County
I oppose common core because it is giving control of educational decisions to the federal Government and leaves no transparency as to how these standards are written. These decisions should be at the local level. The common core standards are a weak minimal standard which will make US and Utah children unable to compete with other top educational countries.This is especially evident in math and science. Utah has many highly technical industries and business needing engineers and scientists. Utah needs to be able to have its own standards to educate residents to be able to  complete advanced degrees in the scientist and engineering and technical fields. If we cannot do this we are giving away jobs to foreigners (from Singapore , and China etc). These jobs need to be filled with Utah students.The common core standards and curriculum do not prepare students adequately in math and science. Another advantage is that I believe Utah will be stuck with the high cost of implementing these standards. These standards also introduce  the national tracking pf student data which goes against the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). I am not comfortable with testing and tracking students on  psychometric attributes.High School 9-12Weber
For first graders we now have even more “push-down” curriculum which pushes even more down the throats of our little ones we are supposed to inspire to love learning.First GradeDavis
It is taking away the the creativity of the teacher and the individual needs of the students.  It’s making robots  instead of thinking and learning on a higher standard. IT WILL NOT BE COST EFFECTIVE IN THE LONG RUN.  STUDENTS GOING THROUGH HIGH SCHOOL WILL NOT BE READY FOR HIGHER LEARNING.  We want to be in charge IN our state and the education of our children  When the Federal Government gets its hands into the private institution  of public learning, it will be near impossible to remove it.  DON’T SUPPORT COMMON CORE!THIRD GRADEDAVIS
Because it infringes on the rights of the states and puts pressure to adapt to a national standard.I home school and teach all grades, but currently 8th, 9th and 1st gradeSummit
It is unconstitutional, oversteps parental rights and our God-given rights. It clearly isn’t about education, it’s about control, indoctrination, and lose of freedom as we have always known it.  The assessments probe for information far beyond academic knowledge.SecondUtah
I actually teach at a private school but have been in the public school education system for many years.  I oppose the CC, ONE reason each state is different and you cannot judge one state over another, the students and their needs are very different in Utah than back east or elsewhere.  Thank goodness for private schools11 Also the fact that each school dist will have to purchase a new curriculum just baffles the heck out of me!! Just spending more tax payers dollars as far as I am concerned!Preschool and KindergartenJuabLyla
If CCS are adopted, our education standards would be controlled by unaccountable education policy “experts” far removed from parents, students, and teachers, who are critical to children’s educational success.  CCS are controversial as to their benefits.  What is not controversial is their cost – billions to implement.7thSalt Lake
Poor outcomes. Lower curriculum standards. No sequential basis to ensure no holes from grade to grade. Not a curriculum, an outcome with no guidelines to what and how subjects will be taught.taught K,2,3,5Principal of K-8WashingtonJaime Wilson
This is an infringement on our rights as citizens of the USA.K-12Summit
Because children are not “peas in a pod.” How can you scrap gifted levels for some & special help for the slower students without destroying each group. Our educational system should be teaching individuals to think to resolve issues, not teaching to create “group think.” One grandson was so far ahead of the Jr.HS curricula that he dropped out at 14. Went to UVCC taking robotics/hydraulics. Finish 3rd in the national competition for corrective repair at 15. There are too many students that are high level to stuff them into a system that is meant to create a group of semi-literate, non-thinking people to control by elitists.college vocational level (retired)chief instructor/subject matter directorUtah
Change is hardK-12DirectorUT
Our children are greatest assets.  We want to succeed in life.  Common Core standards are below standards.  It has none when it comes to looking out for our children regarding getting the best education.I supervise 9th-12th.Test Coordinator/ProctorUtahDebbi Clegg
This may seem offtrack but I think we should be careful of something that comes from the federal government.  More federal money means more control for the federal government and less local control.second
These standards are not challenging or flexible enough to help students learn all they can. There is little freedom for teachers and local school boards to decide what is taught.SecondUtah
Control should be left at a local level10Washington
l) Takes away parental rights, and States rights.  Federalizes the education of our nations children.   2) Privacy – tracking kids on 400 points takes away our privacy, makes our kids data points.  They are children! They should be protected by their parents. The government has no right to track and keep tabs on our children. 3) The dumbing down of the curriculum. What they want to teach is lowering the standard of learning.  The math methods are not clear and are unproven experimental methods.  They want to kill the love of reading, by taking away the classics and teaching them to read manuals and other senseless material.Middle SchoolUtah
These standards are below what my children are currently at.4th grade
I feel that the Common Core Standards do not prepare our children for the future. They cater to special interest groups and I feel that if state monies are used for education, the majority of the state should have a say in how their money is used, regarding what is taught. It should not be dictated by the federal government.3rdUtah
Concerns

Common Core: A Mental Health Professional & Parent’s Perspective

2 Comments

The following letter was posted to Facebook by Dr. Gary Thompson concerning the very real privacy concerns in Common Core. I strongly encourage you to read this and share it with others.

Dear Mrs. Swasey & Mr. Beck:

I am writing this note on behalf of your joint request to address issues surrounding the Common Core State Standards Act (CCSS) that is currently in the process of being implemented in the vast majority of our public school systems in the country.

By way of background, I’m an African American Doctor of Clinical Psychology (Psy.D.) currently serving as Director of Clinical Training & Community Advocacy at a private child psychology clinic in South Jordan, Utah.  I completed undergraduate education at both the University of Utah in Salt Lake City, and Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah.  In addition to my personal experiences involving my four children in public schools, I have completed multiple thousands of hours in training/therapy/assessment/legal advocacy work with children in both the private and public school settings in multiple western states.   I am also the author of an award winning doctoral project/dissertation which tackled the ago old problem of why many African American school aged children underperform in public schools titled, “Cracking the Da Vince Code of Cognitive Assessment of African American School Aged Children:  A Guide for Parents, Clinicians & Educators” (Thompson, G. 2008).

As a “local clinical community scientist”, I have an ethical obligation to our community at large to provide unbiased opinions regarding issues that affect the education experiences of school-aged children and their respective guardians.  The “Common Core States Standards Act” (CCSS) falls uniquely into this category.    I have devoted many hours reading commentaries and studies, both pro and con, regarding the overall efficacy of CCSS.

In a nutshell, the (mostly) progressive public education community speaks highly of CCSS and its stated goal of raising educational standards across the board in a effort to improve the educational process for all students in the country, particularly under performing African American and Latino students nationwide.

The (mostly) conservative opponents of CCSS claim that involvement in public school education should be primarily a local/statewide process, and that Federal intrusion into public school education is not effective for multiple alleged reasons.  In addition, there are disputes involving the CCSS curriculum itself whereas proponents cite multiple sources of research that allegedly support the efficacy of the education content.

Opponents also cite similar competing references that support their contention that CCSS curriculum stifles’ teachers’ creativity and that the content, especially in math, is not effective for early learners, gifted students, and children with diagnosed learning disabilities. The amount of information available to voters and parents by “experts”, both for and against CCSS, is overwhelming in its length, complexity and emotional intensity.   Like the Affordable Care Act, the implementation of the Common Core State Standards in the vast majority of public schools nationwide, has caused a seemingly unbridgeable divide in many quarters of this country.

I am not an expert in the development and implementation of core educational curriculum in public schools, so I will not comment on the issue.  I am not an expert on the effects of federal government involvement, verses local involvement, in public school education, so I will not comment on the issue.  I am not a forensic accountant with expertise in the areas of national and local financial accounting tax monies submitted towards public education, so I will not comment on that issue.  I am also not a politician, nor do I represent any special interest groups that could even be remotely tied to the multiple and complex issues surrounding CCSS.  I find the political process in this day and age to be ineffective and personally unfulfilling, and will not comment on the efficacy of education platforms set forth by the three main political parties.   I am, however, an expert in psychological and educational assessment/testing, as well as privacy acts surrounding the use of these tests in both private and educational settings.   My remaining comments will focus on these two issues as they are addressed by the CCSS.

Educational Testing

According to the U.S. Department of Education, CCSS will authorize the use of testing instruments that will measure the “attributes, dispositions, social skills, attitude’s and intra personal resources” of public school students under CCSS (USDOE Feb, 2013 Report).  In a nutshell, CCSS simply states that it will develop highly effective assessments that measures….well….almost ”everything.”

Our clinic performs these comprehensive IEE’s (Individual Education Evaluations) on a daily basis. These test measure “attributes”, “dispositions”, “social skills”, “attitudes” and “intra personal resources” as stated by the USDOE.    In addition, we utilized state of the neuro-cognitive tests that measure the informational process functioning of children in school (Cognitive Assessment System, Naglieri 2002).

A careful, or even a casual review of a “comprehensive evaluation” would clearly show that the level of information provided about a particular child is both highly sensitive and extremely personal in nature. They are also extremely accurate.  In a private clinic such as ours, we follow strict privacy guidelines regarding patient privacy (HIPPA) and when dealing with educational institutions, we also make sure that we comply with the FERPA Act (Federal Education Reporting & Privacy Act).

Bluntly put, if a client’s records somehow get into the hands of anyone besides the parents without written consent from the parents, or a court order, our clinic would be shut down in a heartbeat and the clinician who released unauthorized comprehensive assessments would lose their license.   Clinical Psychologists in graduate level classrooms and clinical training sites spend years getting these basic privacy rights pounded into our heads.  Failure to articulate and implement strict privacy guidelines issued by the Federal Government, State licensing boards, or the American Psychological Association (APA) would result in immediate dismissal from graduate school academic institutions, as well as any clinical psychology training sites in either Internship or Residency settings.

The accuracy of psychological testing has grown in the past 10 years to astonishing levels.  The same tests used in our clinic for assessments, are used in part by federal law enforcement agencies, the military, local police departments, and the Central Intelligence Agency. (Interesting enough, these agencies are also interested in finding out about alleged terrorist’s, serial killers, or airline pilots “attributes, dispositions, social skills, attitudes and intra personal resources”).  When placed in the “right” hands of trained mental health professionals, psychological testing can save lives.   Placed in the “wrong” hands, psychological testing can ruin lives as well as cause psychological trauma to people if they have knowledge that their results were used for nefarious purposes.

Below are issues regarding CCSS “testing” policies that have not been addressed by the Common Core to State’s Governors’, State Superintendents, State School Boards, local school district superintendents, local school boards, to parents of children in public school education:

  1. Common Core does not address what types of tests will be utilized on our children.
  2. Common Core does not address, specifically, exactly who is developing these tests.
  3. Common Core does not address the fact that these tests have not yet been developed, and are not available for public consumption or private review by clinical psychology  researchers and psychometric professionals.
  4. Common Core does not address if the soon to be completed tests will be subjected to the same rigorous peer review process that ALL testing instruments are subjected to prior to being released to mental health professionals for their use in the private sector.
  5. Common Core does not state which public school employees would be administering or interpreting these tests.   There is a reason that School Psychologists cannot “practice” outside of their scope in school districts.   As hard working and as wonderful as this group is, their training pales in comparison to the average local clinical psychologist.
  6. Common Core does not address the well documented, peer-reviewed fact that both African American and Latino students, due to cultural issues, tend to have skewed testing results when cultural issues are not addressed prior to the initiation of such testing.  This should probably be addressed if these results are going to be following a student “from cradle to high school graduation.”
  7. Lastly, once these highly intimate, powerful, and most likely inaccurate testing results are completed, who EXACTLY will have access to all of this data?   Common Core DOES address this issue and it is the subject of the next section.

Privacy

I mentioned above that our private clinic is subjected to multiple federal, state, and professional association regulations when it comes to protecting and releasing mental health records. The rationale behind these regulations is obvious in nature both to the professionals, as well as their clients.   Records do not leave our clinic unless the guardians of the children instruct us, or unless a District Court judge orders the release of the records.   In some cases, we are even ethically obligated to fight court orders that request private mental health records.

Common Core State Standards radically changes this game.  

Prior to CCSS, public school districts were required to adhere to the same rules and regulations regarding private records as our clinic is subjected to.   HIPPA tells us how to store records, were to store records, and whom to release them too.  FERPA (Federal Education Records Protection Act) is subjected to HIPPA requirements when it comes to protecting sensitive education records.   As show herein, educational testing records are highly sensitive and it only makes common sense that this practice of protecting these sensitive records continues.

Buried in all of the fine print of the CCSS is a provision that allows participating school districts to ignore HIPPA protections.   The newly revised FERPA laws grants school districts and states HIPPA privacy waivers.  

Department of Health & Human Services Regulation Section 160.103 states, in part,:

“Protected health information EXCLUDES individually identifiable health information in education records covered by the Family Education Rights & Privacy Act (FERPA), as amended 20 U.S.C. 1232 g”.

CCSS also states that this “information” may be distributed to “organizations conducting studies for, or on behalf of, educational agencies or institutions to develop, validate, or administer predictive testing.” (CCSS (6)(i).  

In summary CCSS allows the following by law:

  1. Grants school districts a waiver from FERPA in terms of deleting identifying information on their records.
  2. Allows school districts to then give these identifiable records basically to anyone who they deem to have an viable interest with these records.
  3. These organization or individuals chosen by the government to use this data to develop highly accurate predictive tests with no stated ethical procedures, guidelines, or institutional controls.   (What are they exactly trying to “predict”?”
  4. All without written parental consent.

The “Comprehensive Statewide Longitudinal Data System,” employed by CCSS that will hold this sensitive data, per DOE webpage, states, “all States implement state longitudinal data systems that involve elements specified in the “America Competes Act”.   I spent two hours pouring over this Act to see if there were any further guidelines to Federal of State officials as such may pertain to privacy issues.   None could be found.

Proponents of the CCSS point to volumes of articles and promises and policies that state that our children’s data will be private and protected by the national and state data systems that will shortly be implemented per CCSS guidelines.   I have very little doubt that the computer systems employed by Federal, State and local districts that contain this data will be state of the art computer systems.  Others whom are experts in this field may differ strongly).  The point however is this: CCSS does not specify who can have access to their records, or for what specific purposes this sensitive data will be utilized.   When it comes to addressing privacy issues, the CCSS contains abundant, generalized “legal speak”.

In terms of privacy issues, below are issues regarding CCSS “privacy” policies that have not been addressed by the Common Core to State’s Governors, State Superintendents, State School Boards, local school district superintendents, local school boards, to the parents of children in public school education:

  1. Exactly WHO will have access to records obtained by this national/state database?  The generic political answer of “Appropriately designated education officials or private research entities” does not “cut the mustard.”
  2. For what EXACT purpose will this sensitive data be utilized?
  3. What organizations will have access to identifiable academic records?  Other than generic information regarding race, age, gender and geographic location, why does the Federal database require identifiable information to be accessible?
  4.  If the political responses to these questions are “all information contained in the database is unidentifiable and securely stored,” then why were changes made to FERPA to allow an exemption to educational privacy rights when it comes to the implementation of Common Core State Standards?
  5. What type of “predictive tests” are currently being designed and who will have access to results of whatever is being measured?

Conclusion

Like the infamous “No Child Left Behind” laws that on some levels (with the sole exceptions of the 2004 IDEA Act included in NCLB), have set back progress of public school education years, I honestly believe that a few lawmakers with good hearts and intentions honestly wanted to find solutions to our public school systems.  I believe also that the Obama Administration wants every child to have a proper and rigorous education and that the implementation of Common Core will bring them closer to that goal.

I am also, however, a local clinical community scientist. In this role I have several serious questions concerning CCSS noted herein which have yet to be answered to my satisfaction as a scientist, education advocate, and parent. I would implore every Governor, State Superintendent, and State School Board member in the country to honestly and openly explore the issues cited above and provide accurate answers to these issues to the public in “plain speak”.

Given the gravity of these issues, I cannot professionally endorse the Common Core State Standards as currently written until pointed clarification is provided by politicians and educators from both party’s endorsing CCSS.  Nor in good conscience can I enroll my toddler in a public school system that utilizes CCSS until these issues are clarified to my satisfaction.

The issues involving psychological testing and privacy are issues that should be of concern to every parent with a child enrolled in public school.    The power granted federal and state education administrators via the regulations of CCSS are unprecedented in nature.   Some parents will be quite comfortable with CCSS even in light of the issues detailed in this letter.   Some parents would be aghast with the same provisions.   Regardless, parents deserve to be clearly informed about these and other issues surrounding CCSS in a clear and straightforward manner so that they can make educated choices regarding their children’s educations.

On a final note, I wish to publicly show my support to the underpaid and overworked public school teachers nationwide.  If I had the power, I would elevate their status to that of a medical doctor in terms of pay and prestige. What they do with the limited resources available, and with the burden of bureaucracy following their every professional move is simply nothing short of amazing.  Our clinic employees several public school teachers (One is a former Utah Teacher of the Year), and school psychologist due to their amazing talents and abilities of reaching the hearts and minds of our young and diverse educational psychology clients.

There are answers to most of the perplexing questions facing public school officials.  I believe these answers can be readily found in multiple peer-reviewed journals in neuropsychology, clinical psychology, education and public policy.  Answers can also be found by mining the experiences, wants and needs of our hardworking public school teachers on the local and statewide ground level, as well as local parenting organization of various stripes.  Once science and cultural based solution are found and implemented, I believe even cynical conservative lawmakers nationwide would be more willing to pony up additional tax payer money when presented with imaginative, science based educational models in public school systems.   On the other hand, simply adding billions of dollars towards a 150-year old foundational system of education in crisis without implementing massive changes is irresponsible, unimaginative, and most likely politically  and monetarily motivated.

When politics and money are taken out of the public school education policy arena and replaced with common sense and culturally sensitive science, mixed in with local value systems, I believe we, as a nation will make great strides in the goal of educating our children.

Until that time comes, it is my wish that regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation and political affiliations, our country will join together at the grass roots to amicably reach “common core” grounds of restoring our once proud public education system.

Best regards,

Dr. Gary Thompson

Director of Clinical Training & Community Advocacy Services

Early Life Child Psychology & Education Center, Inc.

www.earlylifepsych.com

Doctor Thompson can be reached for comment at drgary@earlylifepsych.com

News

Glenn Beck Slams Common Core

10 Comments

On Glenn Beck’s show today, two Utah teachers, David Cox and Christel Swasey, joined Emmett McGroarty of the American Principles Project and Sherena Arrington in a discussion about Common Core State Standards. The show was excellent and if you would like to watch the entire show, sign up for a free two week trial on Glenn’s website and look for the episode from today (3-14-2013). Here’s a few clips from the show.

Intro

Segment on Data Collection

Segment on Math Lunacy and Freedom Issues

Concerns

Full Indoctrination coming to Common Core?

6 Comments

About a year ago, Senator Margaret Dayton invited me to a meeting with a top member of the Utah state administration. One of the first things out of his mouth when we entered the room was “I’ve read the Common Core standards and there’s no Marxist indoctrination in them.”

It was clear what had happened. The Utah state office of education had set up a straw man argument telling this official that “these extremists fighting Common Core think these standards are going to indoctrinate children into Marxism.” Then they give them a copy of the standards and say, “here, read it for yourself,” thus proving their false allegations to be true.

I replied and said, “nobody has ever said that. It’s not the standards that are going to indoctrinate our children and we’ve never said that. However, the people pushing Common Core nationally have an agenda behind them.” We had a good discussion and he took lots of notes and was concerned that we protect Utah from federal intrusion. He asked Senator Dayton to run a bill to protect Utah and she did, but that bill was ultimately rendered toothless after the state office of education pressured senators to change the language on the bill from “shall exit” to “may exit” if one of several triggers occurred.

Unfortunately, this state official now travels around telling people that Common Core is great and there’s nothing to worry about. I share this story now because there appears to be a true cause for concern regarding indoctrination.

Last December, Glenn Beck’s site theblaze.com posted a very important article regarding terrorist turned educator Bill Ayers. Ayers spoke at a conference in December and openly talked about using the absolute access the leftists in America have in the school system.

“If we want change to come, we would do well not to look at the sites of power we have no access to; the White House, the Congress, the Pentagon,” Ayers added. “We have absolute access to the community, the school, the neighborhood, the street, the classroom, the workplace, the shop, the farm.” – Bill Ayers

Why did Ayers say this? He knows as well as anyone that the US Department of Education is a socialist factory. Charlotte Iserbyt documented this in her excellent work “The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America.”

Ayers also knows people like Linda Darling-Hammond are in positions of power in education. Ayers recommended her to President Obama as a choice for secretary of education.

Ms. Darling-Hammond is a Marxist who wrote the book “Learning to Teach for Social Justice.” She is the senior researcher with the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium which Utah signed onto as a governing member as part of our Race to the Top application. Last year we got the state board to vote to exit from SBAC’s assessments on our students.

An informant inside the state office of education told us that the state was writing an RFP for the assessments in such a way that they would only choose a provider using SBAC’s assessments, and sure enough, out of about 13 applications, the state office chose AIR, the official partner of SBAC to deliver our assessments. AIR is an organization with an extreme agenda which you can read about here.

What else has Ms. Darling-Hammond been involved in? CSCOPE, a program forced on Texas for their curriculum. CSCOPE was based on the research and beliefs of Linda Darling-Hammond. This past week Glenn Beck exposed CSCOPE as a subversive curriculum that completely turns American history on its head and straight out indoctrinates our children.

Here’s the kicker and I wish we had full knowledge on this. Susie Schnell pointed out in the Blaze article that it said Common Core tried to purchase CSCOPE but it was turned down. It appears that during hearings on CSCOPE in Texas, a retired science teacher made this statement that at some point, Common Core Standards tried to purchase CSCOPE. This is interesting because Common Core is just a set of standards, not an organization. The National Governor’s Association and Council of Chief State Superintendents Organization are the two non-governmental entities that created and copyrighted Common Core with funding from the Gates Foundation. CSCOPE is a curriculum. If this statement is correct, then there is a possibility that the people behind the Common Core standards were looking for a curriculum that could be used in all the states to finish out the national education takeover and globalization that Gates agreed to do with UNESCO in 2004.

So Common Core set de facto national standards. The federal government funded national assessments with SBAC and PARCC. And CSCOPE may just be the pilot program for national curriculum..

Listen to Glenn Beck’s monolog from Friday. I don’t think he fully understands Common Core yet, but he’s at least starting to dig in and I’m sure more will be forthcoming. He also talks about something they are working on in the field of education.

 

Concerns

Framework for a Multistate Human Capital Development Data System

3 Comments

Save a copy of this one. This paper received its funding from …SURPRISE… the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.  Titled “Framework for a Multistate Human Capital Development Data System,” this paper outlines the population tracking of people in America. Here’s a few salient quotes.

The rise of a globalized knowledge economy requires us to understand the distribution of skills and abilities in our population.

This “human capital development data system” must be developed to answer “master” policy questions that benefit each of the principal state stakeholders – the K-12 education system, the postsecondary system, and labor/workforce development system – both for accountability purposes and to inform improvements in policy and practice.

A more effective data system for accountability and policy and practice improvements could provide answers to such questions. Integrated to enable large-scale longitudinal analyses to support state educational and workforce development policy, student or individual unit-record data, linked together across K-12 education, postsecondary education, and the workforce, comprise what we call a human capital development data system (HCDDS). An HCDDS should be able capable of:
• Tracking the stock and flow of the skills and abilities (represented by education and training) of various populations within a given state.
• Examining the gaps in educational attainment between population groups, based on demography and socio-economic status.
• Incorporating information from multiple states, given the mobility of the U.S. population and the fact that many population centers are located on state boundaries.

We are all cattle now.  

Given the sensitivity of SSNs and the fact that even they cannot match all individual student records “perfectly,” it is probably wise for states to adopt a broader approach to “identity matching.” Such an approach would link records using a larger group of variables corresponding to student characteristics, including but not limited to the SSN (when available) or statewide student identifier.

Use of Social Security Numbers would pin all tracking data to an individual instead of aggregating it and protecting children’s privacy.

While there is still much work to be done in linking K-12 and postsecondary records, states also should be planning now for how to incorporate workforce data into their longitudinal data systems. Indeed, the federal government has made this a basic expectation for states receiving ARRA funds.

When Utah applied for federal money under Race to the Top and the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA), the feds required us to sign onto a database to track students from preschool through college and into the workforce. Just a year ago the Utah State Office of Education announced their partner in a P20w statewide longitudinal database system that can integrate with other states and federal agencies. <sarcasm>All for research purposes of course.</sarcasm>

Some years ago, Outcome Based Education was shot down by parents when they awoke to what was really going on…the tracking of children and “master” planning for society based on creating good little trained monkeys for the workplace. Children are people. We need to stop treating them like widgets being stamped out at a factory.

Concerned yet? Share this with your legislators and ask them to get us out of Common Core and the Statewide Longitudinal Database System. IT’S NOT GOING TO BE USED JUST FOR RESEARCH. Share fliers with your neighbors. It’s time for an overhaul of our education system that brings it all in-state and gets us off the federal dollars.

 

Reference

What the State Office of Education Isn’t Telling You About Common Core

3 Comments

Common Core Legislature BookletIn an effort to reach out to legislators, we prepared a 16-page booklet packed with the truth about Common Core and put relevant comics from the Weapons of Math Destruction series on each of the pages. These booklets were passed out to members of the Utah legislature today along with a copy of my op-ed from the Deseret News regarding HJR 8. Will you please email or call your legislator and ask if he/she got the booklet entitled, “What the State Office of Education Isn’t Telling You About Common Core” and ask if he/she agrees that Utah should get out of Common Core.

To get a copy of this booklet, click this link to open it up.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B37_5IjcOBbyQjZuclk1UEJkZ1U/edit?usp=sharing

 

 

News

The Most Laughable Bill of 2013

Leave a comment

The Deseret News has published my op-ed or letter to the editor regarding the most insane bill I’ve ever read. Here’s the text of my letter and a link to the DNews. Please share the DNews link.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765622895/Common-Core-resolution-is-the-most-laughable-bill-of-2013.html

Published Letter

Do we really need to stoop to this level? The legislature is considering HJR 8, “Joint Resolution on the Benefits of Adopting Common Core.” This bill is full of the same lies that get told over and over attempting to propagandize the public into believing they are true.

http://le.utah.gov/~2013/bills/hbillint/HJR008.pdf

“This joint resolution of the Legislature recognizes the significant benefits that have come to Utah’s students due to the adoption of the Utah Core Standards.”

How exactly can someone claim significant benefits when we have NO data on how Common Core is performing yet?

“WHEREAS, the Common Core standards were developed by a state-led effort”

No they were Gates-led, not state-led. The Gates Foundation pumped $20 million into the National Governors Association and Council of Chief State Superintendents Organization to create these standards. They did it to fulfill a contractual obligation stemming from Microsoft’s 2004 contract with UNESCO to create a global education system. Gates has paid $173 million so far to create and promote Common Core. The Utah State Office of Education didn’t even know who was on the drafting committee until the standards were written, which happens to be AFTER Utah adopted them.

“WHEREAS, the process used to write the standards ensured they were informed by the best state and international standards, the best student test scores, the experience of teachers, content experts, states, leading thinkers, feedback from the general public, and the most important international models, as well as research and input from numerous sources, including state departments of education, scholars, assessment developers, and professional organizations;”

You’ve got to be kidding me. First, it’s well established that the Common Core standards were never internationally benchmarked.

Second, does anyone seriously think that the standards were “informed by the best” student test scores?”

“Leading thinkers?” The leading thinkers were on the validation committees and upon reviewing them opted to NOT endorse the standards.

Feedback from the general public? The Utah state office only held a public meeting as a formality due to complaints after they adopted the standards.

“WHEREAS, the Utah State Board of Education began the effort to revise its mathematics core standards in 2007 after concerns were raised about the rigor of the state’s current standards;”

Yes, concerns were raised and the 2007 standards were a great improvement. In fact, those standards had most students finishing algebra 1 in 8th grade so most students could take an authentic calculus class by 12th grade. Unfortunately, Common Core pushes completion of algebra 1 to 9th grade, so most students will never get calculus by the time they graduate, just pre-calculus.

The rest of this bill is so full of nonsense I just can’t even bring myself to comment on it. Here are a couple examples.

“WHEREAS, while Utah Core Standards help teachers organize and prepare for instruction, like building codes help an architect prepare a blueprint, the curricula used to implement the Utah Core Standards varies according to district or charter school needs, like homes built using building standards or codes are not identical, but are built based on the needs and values of the owner while still following the building code;”

“WHEREAS, the Utah Core Standards are based on college, career, and civic readiness that lead to honest labor and are designed for the greater common good of Utah’s citizens:”

My guess is that someone from the State Office of Education drafted this in an attempt to convince legislators and the public that Common Core is really great, magically turning fiction into fact.

Common Core is the biggest education boondoggle foisted upon the American people, and it will prove to be worse as time goes on. How will Utah students be better prepared than anyone else in the United States when they are being commonly trained for the same jobs? Someone needs to jump ahead, and Utah should be that state.

Please contact your legislators and tell them not to be duped by such insanity and to vote against HJR 8.