News

Rep. Layton’s bill scuttled by Rep. Layton

11 Comments
Tami Pyfer, former State Board member and Governor Herbert's new education adviser, speaks in Rep. Layton's ear
Tami Pyfer, former State Board member and Governor Herbert’s new education adviser, speaks in Rep. Layton’s ear

Rep. Dana Layton yesterday unveiled a substitute version of HB 342. Here’s a link:

http://le.utah.gov/~2014/bills/static/HB0342.html

Unbelievably, she turned to the UEA, state school board, superintendent, and Governor’s office, and rather than return to us for any clarifications we wanted to add, went ahead and rewrote her bill. The original bill was going to have a big fight on its hands because the USOE had said it would cost $2 million to write new standards and that Common Core was free since they came to the state without our cost (Gates Foundation and other sources paid for them). Unfortunately this was a lie. Utah could have the very best standards and they would be free. Utah adopted Common Core solely because of the chance to get Race to the Top money from the Feds.

Listen to her statements in the hearing here:

http://utahlegislature.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?clip_id=16939&meta_id=498318

Quick and not fully quoted comments from her statement:

If I look like I have a little jet lag it’s because I’ve traveled back and forth between universes.

One side everything is rosy

The other CC is a federal takeover

My concern is Utah having control over its ed system

My first bill was drafted when I was under the impression that we’d ceded control

I went to the UEA, local school boards, principal, state board, superintendent Menlove

I came to a different approach

Parents who are alarmed are mostly alarmed by perception that we have let go of control and we are now in lock step with other states that adopted CC

We haven’t let go of the wheel. Not only can we steer, we will.

In speaking with the Governor’s office and others, lets formalize parental involvement in reviewing standards

If we want to spend tens of millions of dollars in Utah promoting STEM careers, perhaps our math standards need to be better suited for engineering careers.

—————-

A couple brief comments while I wrap my head in duct tape…

1) If Utah is concerned about STEM careers, it will be BECAUSE of Common Core, not from our prior decent math standards

2) Even though we had spoken with Rep. Layton, it is obvious she didn’t get as deep into the source documents as she should have. When we have a retired Utah appellate judge review the contracts Utah signed onto and side with us, you know there are some serious issues to wrestle with.

3) There is still a chance for House members to amend this bill back to its original form. Please write your House Representative and ask him/her to either amend the bill back to it’s original form so Utah gets on it’s own superior standards by 2016, or else kill the bill. Saying in this bill that parents should have a review committee for the standards is dangerous because statute already provides for all parents to have a voice in the standards. The USOE just completely failed to do that with Common Core because of the crisis created by the feds to sign up for RTTT money.

UT code says:

The state recognizes that parents currently hold the right to direct the education of their children.

(i) a parent has the right, obligation, responsibility, and authority to raise, manage, train, educate, provide for, and reasonably discipline the parent’s children; and
(ii) the state’s role is secondary and supportive to the primary role of a parent.
http://le.utah.gov/code/TITLE62A/htm/62A04a020100.htm

Also according to state statute:

 (1) In establishing minimum standards related to curriculum and instruction requirements under Section 53A-1-402, the State Board of Education shall, in consultation with local school boards, school superintendents, teachers, employers, and parents implement core curriculum standards which will enable students to, among other objectives:

http://le.utah.gov/code/TITLE53A/htm/53A01_040206.htm

Please email your House member now and ask him/her to either amend the bill back to it’s original form so Utah gets on it’s own superior standards by 2016, or else kill the bill. Find your rep here:

http://le.utah.gov/GIS/findDistrict.jsp

 

Concerns

USOE wants National Standards, Limits to Parental Powers

10 Comments

Diana Suddreth, a curriculum director at Utah’s State Office of Education, sent out this email this morning in anticipation of HB 342 being presented. It went to “Curriculum Friends” all over the state. In it we clearly see the goals of the USOE. The person who sent it to me included this introductory line and copied several others in her department: “I think we all want this bill to go a different way than Diana and Syd do.”

———————- (bold and italics mine)

From: Suddreth, Diana <Diana.Suddreth@schools.utah.gov>

Date: Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 9:06 AM Subject: HB342

Curriculum Friends,

Just a heads up that today in the House Education Standing Committee HB342 (Powers and Duties of the State Board of Education by Rep. Layton) will be heard.

This bill essentially gives more power to parents over curriculum standards, would prohibit us from adopting any national standards, and would require a revision of our current math and ELA standards.

Go to www.le.utah.gov  to read the bill and find additional information should you want to take any action.  Rep. Layton has promised a substitute that will be softer but as of yet, the original bill is still on the agenda.

Sydnee Dickson, Ed. D.

Director, Teaching and Learning

Utah State Office of Education

801-538-7788

Please note Utah has a very broad public records law.  Most written communication to or from our state employees regarding state business are public records availiable to the public and media upon request. Your email communication may be subject to public disclosure.

—————————-

Well Ms. Dickson, I thought the USOE valued local control and parental input? I thought Common Core wasn’t a set of National standards? Freudian slip? True colors coming out? How dare you try to take power away from parents over what their children are exposed to and the quality of education they receive. The USOE sold us down the river in adopting Common Core for a shot at getting a federal bribe. The USOE is perhaps the most subversive agency in the state.

Concerns

House Bill 131 Injures Parental Rights and Endangers Taxpayers

3 Comments

An open letter to Utah legislators,

HB 131- Utah’s Public Education Modernization Act seeks to put a mobile device into the hands of every K-12 student. Its price tag is conservatively estimated at $200,000 million. Realistic estimates put it significantly higher and point out that costs will be ongoing.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/57543035-90/million-lockhart-education-board.html.csp

This bill injures parental rights, harms the parent/child relationship and endangers taxpayers in the following ways:

1. Injures parental rights by disrespecting the parent’s primary role as educator.

a.         HB 131 imposes a one-size-fits-all, technology approach to learning that ignores the diverse approaches to learning that many Utah parent’s value. This injures the parent’s right to choose a different approach for their child.

b.         Utah parents, who do not want their child to have access to devices during the entire school day and to be required to use those devices for nightly homework, are injured by this bill.

c.         Utah parents who believe that historically proven approaches to classical educations are better than encouraging overuse of technology to “fundamentally change the teaching and learning experience” are also injured by this bill. (Quote from ProjectRed—the group pushing the bill.)

d.         Computer adaptive curricula, while appealing, also have the disadvantage of being changed without parental knowledge. Additionally, student-identifiable data collection becomes almost impossible to police.

2. Harms the Parent/Child Relationship by subordinating the parent’s authority

a.         Eliminates the parent’s right to control their child’s technology use

b.         Elevates the school’s technology policies over the parent’s technology policies (if the child violates family policy, the parent cannot take the technology away   when it is required for homework)

c.         Causes contention in families by altering the school/parent relationship. The parent and child serve the school’s needs for control, rather than the school serving the parent and child’s needs for education.

d.         Creates a power struggle between parents who disagree with technology overuse, schools who require it, and children who are tied to it

3. Makes Utah taxpayers beholden to private interests seeking to dismantle local control of resources

a.         ProjectRED is the group behind HB 131 that is seeking to put a mobile device into every child’s hands. There are questions about ProjectRED’s sponsor Intel, Intel’s relationship with IM Flash and IM’s relationship to legislators supporting HB 131. These relationships should be made transparent to Utah taxpayers.

b.         ProjectRED’s CEO Leslie Wilson said, “Regions and districts MUST consolidate…to recapture funds to reallocate to ed tech.” This edict benefits ProjectRED, and special interests who jump on the technology bandwagon, NOT Utah taxpayers.

c.         Technology is ever-changing. Costs for broken, lost, stolen, or outdated devices cannot be foreseen. Will parents have to pay for broken, lost or stolen devices? Will taxpayers be on the hook for continued upgrades which will further enrich the private interest