JaKell Sullivan posted this on Facebook and with permission I’m reposting it here.
*****************
STEM. Ask yourself “WHY?”
I wish more and more parents were making the connection between the “why” of federal funding behind Common Core and STEM. If you have not read Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand, please read it and then read it with your children. The book’s “State Science Institute” actually offers us a window into the world we are now entering–state controlled science.
The federal administration is not funding STEM (and state governors are not accepting federal grants) to improve learning in those fields. They are funding STEM fields to change our children’s worldview, ie; to use technology, data and psuedo-science to further state power and control, and advance social justice.
Arizona State University is creating the ‘New American University’ (the blueprint for aligning colleges to Common Core). They are eliminating 40 schools within the college. There are no longer science disciplines in their own schools. For example: “Biology, microbiology, and plant, molecular, and cell biology merged to become the School of Life Sciences. There is also now a School of Human Evolution and Social Change, School of Earth and Space Exploration, School of Social and Family Dynamics and School of Social Transformation.”
This is why federal grants are pushing and more low-income minorities (including children from Mexico) into these STEM fields. The poorest can be used to propagandize the rest. Data can hold and perpetuate the values of those in power. As more and more girls are pushed into these fields, their hearts will be turned inside out—trusting in the “science” of data rather than the still small voice that is their divine, nurturing gift as women.
See the point below about “reverse engineering the brain” in the federal Grand Challenge.
The federal government is funding the following entities who have “committed” to federal goals for what it means to be STEM educated:
• STEM Americorp
• US2020 – US2020 is expanding its city-level STEM mentoring network. The long-term goal of US2020 is to mobilize 1 million STEM mentors annually by the year 2020. (Ask yourself, why is the federal government so desperate to get 1 million STEM mentors in America?)
• Federal agencies
• Technology companies
• Early career scientists (ie; get the young teachers on board by pairing them with mentors)
• Teachers (the NOAA, NASA and Dept. of Ed are launching “teacher-led” efforts to showcase approaches addressing climate change)
• Philanthropies
• Corporations
• CEO Coalitions
• Education Campaigns
• Grant programs
• Universities and Colleges (more than 120 are committed to train 20,000 engineers to tackle the “Grand Challenges” of the 21st century. The Grand Challenge will include topics like “reverse engineering the brain” and “making solar economical.”
• Library programs
• Museum programs
• K-12 and College Curriculum
• Online assessments
• Children’s television shows and media programs (Applicants are also encouraged to develop new models of embedded assessment and learning systems that adapt as children use them.)
• Youth organizations like Boys & Girls Glub, National 4-H Council and YMCA
• Citizen Science Initiatives (track rain, hale and snow to investigate man-made climate change)
….and on and on.
The below email was sent to me by a Utah public school teacher with permission to share.
*****************
We were mandated to use a specific remedial literacy curriculum/software about 4 years ago grades 3-6. After only one year, the district replaced all of the materials and software at some considerable expense with the NG or “New Generation” version. We were told to turn back in any previous materials and discontinue use. We as teachers had no idea what that NG meant. I started to notice “College to Career” statements everywhere in the lesson plans –not openly discussed with the educators so it had little meaning to me. Sounded nice.
What I noticed on my own, and before the whole Common Core thing came up as an issue, was that the topics were very socially and scientifically biased. Topics that covered a month of activities each, covered racial, immigration, earth resources use, animal humane/exploitation issues, etc… There were no differing views, but a railroaded view and conclusion with student answers actually formatted so they had to orally or in written form answer in a certain way with pre-scripted emotionally-charged dialogue sentence starters (“It was hard for Carlita when her mother couldn’t stay and had to return to Mexico for awhile, and Carlita felt that…”).
The topics seemed to be age inappropriate and more adult oriented and politically controversial. Issues that I never would have approached before. Needless to say, I was and am uncomfortable teaching material that I do not personally agree with (and likely most of the parents) and do not wish to indoctrinate with topics and discussions that can be disturbing to younger children.
The open secret is now public: Utah’s proposed, new science standards are word-for-word identical to the controversial NGSS science standards. How did we get here? Here’s a quick review:
USOE: ‘No National Standards.’ In 2011, the USOE repeatedly promised that Utah will NOT adopt national science or social studies standards, citing “too many philosophical variances” in the standards.
‘Written by Utah.’ In November 2014 the USOE told the parent review committee that the new science standards were “written by Utah.” No third party was attributed as participating in any way. This is corroborated by Alisa Ellis and Vince Newmeyer, both members of the parent review committee.
Missing Copyright Attribution? The parent committee ran a doc comparison between the new “Utah” standards, and the controversial NGSS national science standards. They found them to be word-for-word The lack of citation to NGSS was a mystery until someone found the copyright notice on Achieve, Inc’s NGSS site, wherein Achieve (the owner of NGSS), allowed a state to surreptitiously adopt the standards (i.e., be exempt from the copyright attribution requirement), as long as the state adopts the standards “in full:” Achieve said:
“States and territories…that have adopted or are in the process of adopting the NGSS in whole shall be exempt from this Attribution and Copyright Notice provision of this License.”
Achieve, Inc’s Disappearing Act. In spring 2015, after Utah standards reviewers made public the deceptive nature of NGSS adoption, Achieve removed the language encouraging “non-attributed” use of the NGSS standards. Now Achieve is trying to minimize (hide?) its own ownership and control of NGSS. In its revised Web site, it has not only removed all reference to ownership of NGSS, but now requires states to attribute NGSS to themselves. (see table, below).
“States and territories of the United States as well as the District of Columbia that have adopted or are in the process of adopting the NGSS in whole shall be exempt from this Attribution and Copyright Notice provision of this License.”
[removed]
Ownership of NGSS
“Except as set forth below, Achieve, on behalf of the twenty-six states and partners that collaborated on the NGSS, shall be acknowledged as the sole owner of the NGSS, and licensees shall make no claim to the contrary.
“Suggested citation: NGSS Lead States. 2013. Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States.
Lest anyone be confused as to who really owns and controls the controversial NGSS science standards, both the “original” and “revised” Achieve Web sites include this reminder: “Before using any NGSS trademarks, third parties must submit samples of proposed uses to Achieve for review.”
Here’s a quick rundown on the Provo USOE meeting this past week. Syd Dickson was running the meeting and got up and started asking people for concerns they had with the standards. Frankly, I was stunned at the length and breadth of concerns people expressed. A very short list: the process of adoption; government control leads to a decrease in achievement; what makes us think this will work; who will be held accountable when they fail; who was involved in writing the standards; in adopting 6-9 grade standards which are integrated we are heading toward adopting k-5 and 9-12 without even seeing them; limits curriculum options because of the standards; what are the costs of adoption; people can’t trust USOE; why is the public just now aware of NGSS being what was copied to the Utah SEED standards; lied to about not adopting common core in science; concern over what else are we adopting from national standards like sex ed; inappropriate topics for 6-8 graders like politically charged items; and passing out 6-8 grade standards that didn’t even show all the content that teachers would be given so we could properly evaluate the standards.
The list went on and on. They filled roughly 10 easel size pages with concerns.
Three state school board members were in attendance, Joel Wright, Mark Openshaw, and Brittney Cummins. I haven’t had time to speak with any of them but Joel Wright did tweet one of my comments that this was a rubber stamp process.
After listing many of the concerns and chewing up about 20-30 minutes with that, we moved to public comments. Syd Dickson started out by announcing she felt cyberbullied this week over the video that was posted showing her and Dr. Martell Menlove stating Utah would never adopt Common Core science or social studies standards. She made a few comments which I can’t recall precisely now but I felt she was trying to split hairs saying NGSS isn’t really Common Core because it was created by Achieve and not the CCSSO/NGA so they’ve been honest saying we wouldn’t adopt Common Core science. This is completely wrong. During public comment I was the first to get up and explain the following.
In early 2012, during the same time frame and same state school board members, an employee of the USOE contacted me and told me that the USOE was internally planning on adopting the Common Core science and social studies standards. Outwardly they were telling people (and publishing online) that they had no intention of adopting CC science and it was a fallacy that adopting math and ELA were a slippery slope to science standards adoption. I said I was not surprised in the least that the USOE had brought NGSS/CC science to the state board as the standards they wanted to adopt. The state board didn’t create these standards or request them but the USOE and their supporters want to claim that the state board supports these standards because they voted to put them out for public comment. This is a major fallacy as the state board members had nothing to do with this and just voted to get public input on what the USOE had “created” for Utah.
Near the end of the meeting, Steve Whitehouse, a charter school board member, corroborated my story and said that he too had correspondence with USOE employees in this early time frame that they were telling him the USOE had full intentions of adopting these other national standards while denying it publicly.
It is also insane for the USOE to claim that Next Generation Science Standards aren’t Common Core because Achieve Inc. receives its funding from the Gates Foundation as did the CCSSO & NGA. Gates money funded all sets of national Common Core standards (science by Achieve, and math and ELA by CCSSO/NGA). Pappa Gates funds everything in the Common Core village.
Will the new standards be the Common Core State Standards for Science?
In the end, the decision to adopt the standards and make them consistent between states lies in the hands of the states themselves. The goal was to create robust, forward-looking K–12 science standards that all states can use to guide teaching and learning in science for the next decade. Thus, the National Academies, Achieve, the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) collaborated with states and other stakeholders to ensure the standards are of high quality—internationally benchmarked, rigorous, research-based and aligned with expectations for college and careers.
How will states use these standards documents?
To reap the benefits of the science standards, states should adopt them in whole without alteration. States can use the NGSS, as they are using the CCSS in English language arts and mathematics, to align curriculum, instruction, assessment, and professional preparation and development.
NGSS standards were always intended to be the national science standards to compliment and be implemented with Common Core ELA and math. The USOE lied to the parent review panel telling them these standards were Utah created and written when they’ve been planning this adoption for years.
Also of great concern is an issue Vince Newmeyer raised. A state that does not give attribution to NGSS is either in violation of the copyright or it is a tacit admission the state is in the process of “adopting the NGSS in whole.” So a state doesn’t have to declare the attribution if they are planning to adopt them in whole if they only start with a part.
Now, what’s wrong with the standards themselves? They are integrated so instead of discrete years of studying separate topics and subjects, things are clumped together in a “crosscutting” fashion to address a topic from multiple scientific angles. This obviously has some benefits, but I would have greatly preferred the USOE pull in teachers from around Utah, come up with our own crosscutting plan that matches our already good standards, examined standards from other states that are highly rated, put together a plan in a transparent way, and then implemented it starting in K-4 and add a year at a time. Starting in 6-8 guarantees that things children were taught in one year will be retaught to them in the next year or two again causing boredom. Mid-stream implementations are problematic as we saw with the CC math implementation when children repeated an entire year of math because CC math slows down the curriculum by a full year (algebra 1 is completed in 9th grade instead of 8th unless you are in the honors track by 7th grade).
For a few specific examples of what’s wrong…
One public school teacher got up and said how much he loved what these standards were trying to accomplish but then apologized several times and stated how some were so poorly written he couldn’t even understand what he was meant to accomplish. Syd Dickson told him he had nothing to apologize for, but I took it as a sign of the fear teachers have in speaking out against things that come from the state office. I believe the standard he brought up was 6.4.2 which says:
“6.4.2 Develop a model to generate date for iterative testing and modification of a proposed object, tool, or process such that an optimal design can be achieved.”
Huh? Where is the clarity?
Here’s a couple of the 6th grade standards:
“6.2.4 Ask questions to clarify evidence of the factors that have caused the rise in global temperatures over the past century.”
“6.4.3 Construct an argument supported by evidence for how increases in human population and per-capita consumption of natural resources impact Earth’s systems.”
This is meant for 6th grade discussion and it’s clearly already headed down a controversial path. Global warming is not fact. There are all kinds of issues with it and it is totally inappropriate to introduce such a thing to 6th graders. Same with the potential for discussions on overpopulation. These types of issues are best left for later high school or college, where they are presented clearly with the best arguments on both sides of the issue. It’s way too easy to indoctrinate students by presenting things early in life as factual which are actually under much scrutiny. Students place way too much trust in teachers as the authority figures and if the standards and curriculum lay down a certain path, those students are going to believe it forever.
In 7th grade we get more controversy.
“7.2.4 Apply scientific ideas to construct an explanation for the anatomical similarities and differences among modern organisms and between modern and fossil organisms to infer evolutionary relationships.
Wow is that ever one sided. It’s no longer the theory of evolution in these standards, it’s factual and you need to explain it and make inferences to explain how one life form evolved into others. There are massive holes in the theory of evolution. This does not address any of them.
There are still two science meetings left. Be sure to attend the one closest to you (click for details: Logan and Salt Lake). The USOE has no doubt invited their pro-supporters out (even though they started off with these public meetings by just posting an announcement online and not inviting school districts at all).
To me, the only solution I see at present is for personnel change at the USOE. It must have its budget cut. They provide no classroom benefit, they are all about putting us on national standards, and the state board is so far letting them take us down that road and relinquishing their own power (although I just heard positive news they have sent back the Fine Arts standards the USOE proposed because they are the national standards version as well).
The Utah State Office of Education is pushing to have Utah adopt the national “Next Generation Science Standards” which is Common Core for science (and happens to be rated much lower than our current science standards). To do this, they have been deceptive with the public and the parent review committee telling everyone these standards were written by Utahns when in reality they are national standards. We have been promised that Utah would not adopt these science standards (or for social studies or health), but the current people at the USOE are forging ahead, handing the public a stripped down version of the standards to avoid “overwhelming” them, but planning to give teachers the full set of standards once approved. It’s Deja Vu all over again… Listen to them in their own words on this video.
Please write your school board member and legislators and tell them the USOE is violating their promise by trying to push national science standards on Utahns.
Here is where the USOE posted on their website that the math and ELA adoption would not be a slippery slope to adopting the science, social studies, and other Common Core standards. http://www.utahpublicschools.org/
