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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Methodological tradeoffs.

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

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

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

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

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

Reposted from Christel Swasey’s blog

When I saw, both in a Politichicks article and in a Blaze article, that it was on the recommended reading list of Common Core for 11th grade students to read “The Bluest Eye,” a book that graphically, vividly narrates sex crimes of a child molester in first person, I found it hard to believe that this would be approved in my state.

I wrote to my state school board member.

“Dixie, please tell me that in Utah, we have not approved “The Bluest Eye” for our students’ English reading which is on the Common Core’s list of approved readings. Please tell me that our curriculum committee is more selective. This is disgusting child pornography.
Thank you for finding out the answer.”

She wrote back after consulting with someone at the Office of Education with an assurance that although it was recommended by Common Core, it was not recommended by the Utah State Office of Education. Here is that letter:

“I hope this helps-was what I thought but wanted to be sure.

Dixie

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: “Dickson, Sydnee”
Date: Aug 25, 2013 10:43 AM
Subject: RE: Common Core approved reading: The Bluest Eye
To: “Allen, Dixie”
Cc: “Hales, Brenda”

Dixie,
You are correct in that there are no prescribed texts for the Common Core. There are examples of texts that could be used for text complexity by grade level but this is certainly not one of them in Utah. When you go to our Appendix A and look at the suggestions for 11th grade, you will not find Bluest Eyes listed http://schools.utah.gov/CURR/langartelem/Core-Standards/ELA-Color-Standards-8-12-13.aspx. When you look at Appendix B (pg. 154) in the document published by CCSSO and NGA you will find the following brief excerpt from Bluest Eyes considered as a piece of text with complex language. This is not a recommended book but a section of brief text from the book.

[Excerpt was shared here from Morrison’s “The Bluest Eye”]

We have not recommended this excerpt nor is it published in our Core ELA Standards documents. Because the Common Core is NOT a prescribed curriculum, districts, schools, and teachers are free to use texts and materials that comply with their district policies. This is not a book or text that would be likely be approved by schools in Utah. Also, we are developing digital texts by teachers for teachers and have started with 6-8. Those can be found at http://www.schools.utah.gov/CURR/langartsec/Digital-Books.aspx. Last, and most importantly, we have the RIMS review process that is conducted by a commission of appointed community leaders, parents, and educators. They create a list of published materials that are recommended, recommended with reservation, or not recommended. That list can be found at http://www.schools.utah.gov/CURR/imc/RIMs-Search.aspx. You will not find Bluest Eyes on that list as it has not been requested to be reviewed by either a publisher or a school/district.”

————————————————————————–

For a moment, I was relieved. Utah students were off the pedophilia-literature hook, it seemed.

But then the wheels started turning in my head again. Ms. Dickson had written that the book was not recommended reading in Utah. But we know that Utah’s teachers must follow the national Common Core to prepare children for a nationally-aligned Common Core test (AIR test) this year.

It would seem that an excerpt from this book or any Common Core approved book could be used on Utah’s AIR test, since AIR writes the test to Common Core alignment. Since I wasn’t completely sure whether AIR writes to Utah’s recommended reading list or to Common Core’s recommended readings, I asked Dixie to find out for me. I’m waiting very anxiously to hear back.

Meanwhile, I fact-checked the Blaze article’s statement that said that the Common Core expected students to read the whole texts, not just excerpts. Sadly, that was correct!

At the official Common Core website, it says: “When excerpts appear, they serve only as stand-ins for the full text. The Standards require that students engage with appropriately complex literary and informational works; such complexity is best found in whole texts rather than passages from such texts.”

So, “improving college and career readiness” and “rigor” means, to the architects of Common Core, exposing 11th graders to the literature of pedophilia.

I’m worried about what kinds of “literature” may appear on the Common Core test that Utah students will be exposed to this year. I’m also worried about their exposure to the new version of the ACT/SAT –since David Coleman has both led the creation of Common Core and is now the College Board president. He’s said he’s altering college entrance exams to match his vision of what college and career readiness means. I do not like and do not trust that man.

Then there’s this:

In Utah, there’s a law that 15 parents will be chosen to serve on a test watching committee. These 15 can see the test questions for the new Common Core AIR tests. I applied to be on the 15 parent panel. (I hope many, many Utah parents apply.) The state wrote back to say they received my application, and that I should know that there is a confidentiality agreement. So if any parent serving on this committee sees anything we find unacceptable like this, we can not speak out and specify what we saw. This seems to defeat the purpose of having the committee.

All of this makes me despise the Common Core Initiative, it’s nontransparent testing and nonrepresentative decision making, more and more and more.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear Elected Officials,

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

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

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

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

(i) may not:

(i) engage in lobbying activities;

(ii) attempt to influence legislation; or

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

(A) a political candidate; or

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

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

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

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

Thank you,

Carie Valentine

Attachments:

Contradicting Laws

SB175 with amendments and Title 53A inclusions

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

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

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

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

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

9/28/13 Addendum from Carie:

How Often Will the Tests Be Administered?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Christel Swasey wrote this letter to Superintendent Menlove after the State School Board meeting on August 2, 2013.)

Dear Superintendent Menlove,

Thank you for speaking with many of us today and I apologize for my ongoing impatience.

I requested a list of items several months ago, after I was told that we were misinformed.  I am still waiting, and I’m willing to study items that you feel that my associates or I are still misinformed about.

I welcome clarity. I hope you feel the same way, and hope you take the time to read the research we’ve shared about Common Core as we take the time to attend board meetings and to read your publications.

Most of all, many of us hoped to see empirical evidence and pilot studies –not merely opinions– backing up claims that the standards and tests might benefit, rather than harm, students, and that they are not an experiment at taxpayer and student expense; and many hope to see laws guaranteeing Utah’s authority (without having to get NGA-CCSSO permission) to improve local standards, sky-high; and many hope to see the demise of the out of control monster that is the federally interoperable SLDS as well as the related CAT (SAGE) testing, which track our children without asking our permission.

In the meantime, below is a list of documents with links that document some concerns with Common Core.

If we are permitted to meet in the future, many of us will refer to these documents, and it will be helpful if we know that our leaders have read them as well.  We have certainly read the USOE site and the Common Core standards.

I hope my impatience has not harmed the chances that this elected board will work with parents, teachers and others who are so concerned about the direction in which Utah education has gone.

Christel Swasey

Common Core Concerns

Please click on the links to get to the original source documents that verify Common Core does far more damage than good.

The Race to the Top Grant Application – In this, Utah got points toward possibly winning grant money.  Points were awarded in this application for the state’s having a student-tracker, this federally funded, nationally interoperable SLDS database system. (It is illegal to have a national student database; yet, all 50 states have matching, interoperable SLDS systems. The 50 SLDS’s effectually function as a national student database.  States submit K-12 data to the federal Edfacts Exchange –despite the U.S. Constitution and  GEPA law which makes such accountability to the federal government illegal.  Note that it is not allowed for any Utah student to opt out of being tracked, and parents are not notified nor asked for consent for this P-20 (preschool through grade 20) surveillance.)  Also in this application, Utah got points to adopt the Common Core (without having seen any empirical data to prove Common Core academically legitimate). This lure of federal money was how Utah got in to the current bind. Despite not winning any grant money, Utah unfortunately chose to remain in both the Common Core and what amounts to the federal student surveillance program. It is noteworthy that despite claims that only aggregated data is submitted  to Edfacts Data Exchange, the CCSSO (state superintendents society that copyrighted Common Core) has a “stated commitment to disaggregation of data” and numerous federal websites do model student data standardization and invite states to use common data sets which makes it easier to share personally identifiable information, including biometric and behavioral data.

The No Child Left Behind Waiver – This shows the 15% cap the federal government put on top of the copyrighted Common Core.  The 15% rule limits innovation and excellence, being enforced in the common core aligned test systems and by textbook sales companies’ near-monopoly  on any thought beyond Common Core.  The 15% rule is also echoed in multiple documents from governmental and common core corporate developers.

The State Longitudinal Database System Grant – This is the federally paid-for database that every state in the U.S. has. It tracks students within the state. But each SLDS can communicate with another.  There is no apparent limit to how much information is being collected by schools, and no permission is collected from parents to have such information, nor is there any limit on how much information can be given by states to the federal government about students, because of Department of Education alterations to federal FERPA regulations.  Vendors, volunteers and other unwanted “stakeholders” can  now be considered “authorized representatives” to access data.  Parental consent has been reduced from a requirement to a “best practice.”

The lawsuit against the Department of Education – The Electronic Privacy Information Center has sued the U.S. Department of Education for shredding previously protective federal FERPA law. The lawsuit explains which terms were redefined, which agencies now have legal access to the private data of students, and much more.

Utah’s Core Standards – This document (link below) has been removed, but it used to show on page four, how Utah lost local control under Common Core. Utah had to ask permission from an unelected D.C. group to alter its own state standards.  It said: modified by permission from CCSSO 2010.

http://schools.utah.gov/CURR/mathelem/Core-Curriculum/Utah-Core-Standards-in-Mathematics-Approved-Versio.aspx

The copyright on Common Core held by CCSSO/NGA – The fact that there are “terms of use” and a copyright shows that Utah has no local voice in altering the national standards, which were written behind closed doors in D.C. and which can be altered by their creators at any time without representation from the states governed by them.

The report entitled “For Each And Every Child” from the Equity and Excellence Commission – This report was commissioned by Obama. It reveals that power to forcibly redistribute resources, including teachers, principals and money, is a key reason that federal education reformers want a national education system.

The Executive Summary of Race to the Top – see page 3, part D 3.  This clearly shows the same tactic: the federal education reformers hope to gain the power to redistribute teachers and principals to their definition of “ensuring equitable distribution of effective teachers and principals.”

The Cooperative Agreement between the Dept. of Education and the testing consortia – Even though Utah escaped the SBAC and is not bound by the Cooperative Agreement directly, Utah’s current testing group, A.I.R., works closely with SBAC.  This document shows how clearly the Department of Education has mandated a synchronizing of tests and the sharing of data to triangulate the SBAC and PARCC under the watchful eye of the Department.

The speeches of Secretary Arne Duncan on education – He claims Common Core was Obama’s plan.  He also states that he hopes to make schools replace families as the center of people’s lives, with schools open seven days a week, all year round, almost all day long.

The speeches of President Obama on education – Obama’s 2020 goal is to control teachers, tests, money, and toddlers.

The speeches of the CEA of Pearson Ed, Sir Michael Barber – Barber wants every school on the globe to have the same academic standards and he promotes the underpinning of global education standards with environmental extremism.   He promotes ending diversity, using global sameness and uses the term  “irreversible reform.” His ruthless book, Deliverology, is dedicated to American education reformers. It advocates delivering a set goal at any price and at any cost.  Pearson is the world’s largest education sales company; it’s now partnered with Bill Gates, the second wealthiest man on earth, to promote global common education, devoid of any academic empirical proving that the standards are beneficial rather than harmful.

The speeches of the main funder of Common Core, Bill Gates – He’s funded Common Core almost completely on his own; he’s partnered with Pearson; he says “we won’t know Common Core works until all the tests and curriculum align with these standards” and he’s writing curriculum for all.  He also speaks of the usefulness of having students be “a uniform customer base.”

The speeches of David Coleman, non-educator, and the lead architect of the Common Core ELA standards who has been promoted to College Board President. He mocks narrative writing, has diminished the percentage of classic literature that’s allowable in the standards, promotes “informational text” without studying the effect of the reduction of classic literature on students long term, and, although he’s not been elected, yet he’s almost single-handedly reduced the quality and liberty of the high school English teacher’s options. As College Board President, he’s aligning the SAT to his version of what Common standards should be. This will hurt universities, which now know, for example, that students are not learning Calculus nor much classic literature in high school any more.

Promoting Grit, Tenacity and Perseverance – see p. 62/44 – This U.S. Dept. of Education report assures all that data about behavioral and attitudinal indicators of students are desperately wanted by the federal government. It’s all about controlling students by knowing their inner thoughts.  Facial expression cameras, posture analysis seats, pressure mouses, wireless skin sensors are all recommended as ways to collect data about children in a continuous stream, in this document.

The federal websites such as the EdFacts Exchange, the Common Education Data Standards, the National Data Collection Model, and the Data Quality Campaign, sites  -Three of these four ask states to match other states’ personally identifiable information collection. – The first link shows what we already give to the federal government; the others show what the federal government is requesting that all states do, which does include collecting intimate, personally identifiable information such as bus stop times, nicknames, parental voting record, academic scores, health information, mother’s maiden name, social security number, etc.

The Common Core English and Math standards – These are the actual standards.  They were rejected by key members of their validation committee, who have written and testified extensively that Common Core is a terrible academic mistake.

American Institutes for Research  –  AIR’s common core implementation document shows that AIR is not an academic testing group but a behavioral research institute partnered with the federally funded and federally controlled SBAC testing group. Parents and teachers may not see these subjectively written, attitude assessing test questions; and students cannot succeed in this computer adaptive test, which guarantees that all students fail about half the questions.

HB15 – This bill shows that Utah law requires the assessment of behavior and attitudes.  See line 59.

SB 175 – proposed amendments to this bill show that it is Utah educational leadership’s will that any student who opts out of Common Core testing will be punished academically (see line 135) and his/her school will be punished as well (see line 168)

Dr. David Wright, math professor at BYU, just published this op-ed in the Deseret News on concerns about common core math implementation in Utah (leave comments on DNews site) and has given me permission to re-post his article. I share Dr. Wright’s concerns on the implementation of Common Core math standards in Utah and am grateful he has spoken out. This quote is from the American Educational Research Association and contradicts the claims made by the USOE that Common Core was internationally benchmarked.

“International Benchmarking
Wisconsin’s SEC database contains some information on content standards for other countries. In mathematics, there are data for Finland, Japan, and Singapore on eighth-grade standards; alignments to the U.S. Common Core are .21, .17, and .13, respectively. All three of these countries have higher eighth-grade mathematics achievement levels than does the United States. The content differences that lead to these low levels of alignment for cognitive demand are, for all three countries, a much greater emphasis on ‘perform procedures’ than found in the U.S. Common Core standards. For each country, approximately 75% of the content involves ‘perform procedures,’ whereas in the Common Core standards, the percentage for procedures is 38%.”

By going down the integrated math hole, Utah claimed that’s what the high achieving nations are doing. Comparisons don’t support that notion. Common Core is sorely lacking, and the USOE is using it to transform Utah into a total constructivist pedagogy state.

From Dr. Wright:

Utah has a serious math problem, as shown by our performance on the NAEP (the nation’s report card). When broken down by ethnicity, our students perform poorly. Eighth grade white students are in the bottom 27 percent and eighth grade Hispanic students are in the bottom 4 percent.

The new Utah Mathematics Core adopted from the national Common Core, gives us a chance to improve math education in Utah. I favor common math standards, and I think it is possible to implement the Common Core standards in a responsible way. Any new program can be improved. I am offering my suggestions.

Do away with the honors standards developed as a supplement for seventh and eighth grade math. They are not part of the national Common Core. They are vague, poorly written and unnecessary for future courses. The only purpose they serve is to keep students from being accelerated into higher-level math classes.

Do away with the integrated math program that has been rejected by over 90 percent of the states. Integrated math is uncommon. Implement algebra 1, geometry and algebra 2. There is no research evidence that integrated math is better. It keeps motivated students from taking geometry and algebra 2 concurrently. It keeps Utah from using nationally developed math materials.

Find a way to support students who are well-above grade level. The Utah State Office of Education thinks that it will be “rare” for an “especially advanced student to take calculus before the senior year.” Currently it is common for almost half the students who take the AP calculus tests to be in grades 9, 10, or 11. Mathematically gifted students with sufficient motivation appear to be able to learn mathematics much faster than students proceeding through the curriculum at a normal pace, with no harm to their learning, and should be allowed to do so (National Math Panel Report).

Take pedagogy out of the Utah Math Core. The national Common Core does not dictate any particular teaching method. Utah’s Mathematics Common Core implementation is an effort to supplant traditional math with discovery-based pedagogy. Recommendations that instruction should be entirely based on the discovery method are not supported by research.

Stop supporting curricula that focus entirely on discovery teaching like the Mathematics Vision Project. This project is producing materials for teaching Secondary Math 1, 2 and 3 with almost no math content like definitions, theorems, proofs and examples. It will not prepare students for college level courses. The project expects the teacher to orchestrate student discussion and explorations that will eventually solidify into a body of practices that belong to the students. Too bad if the student doesn’t get it some day because there is no way to make sense of the material without a teacher.

Stop making promises that cannot be kept such as, “By the end of 11th grade students will have the quantitative skills they need for post-secondary work and study.” According to the 2012 ACT scores, only 40 percent of Utah students are “math college ready,” a very low standard meaning that they have a 50 percent chance of earning a B or better in college algebra. Students who want to have a science, technology, engineering or mathematics career would have a better chance with an ACT score of 30-36. Only 4 percent of Utah students scored in that range.

The implementation of Utah’s Common Core has been so controversial that the Utah State Republican delegates passed an anti-Common Core resolution by a 65 percent vote. This is certainly a public relations disaster for the State School Board and State Office of Education. Failure to address concerns about the core will further erode support for public education.

——–

David G. Wright is a professor of mathematics at BYU. He is writing as an educator, parent and concerned citizen and his opinions do not necessarily reflect those of BYU.

Another teacher speaks out against Common Core. This was Noel’s speech she was unable to fully give at the Capitol event. Bolding below is mine.

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

My name is Noel Lee and I speak as a mother, an educator, and a law-abiding, tax-paying, voting citizen of the state of Utah and the United States of America.

As a parent, the Common Core standards so far introduced are mediocre at best and fundamentally lacking at worst. Massachusetts, prior to the CC, had developed excellent Language Arts standards that were researched and practically applied with excellent results. These standards were recommended to the Utah board for adoption, but were ignored in favor of the not-even-written-yet Common Core standards. Common Core de-emphasizes classical literature in the upper grades in favor of technical reading. This is appalling. Critical/analytical thought is developed through the study of classical literature through many periods in history. Jr. High and High School is the prime time developmentally to explore concepts of cause/effect, personal morality, foreshadowing, use of metaphors/similes, etc. for cognitive development. Technical reading requires vocabulary and practical application to be meaningful which is impossible to do in an academic setting, outside of real-life experiences. It is also tedious by disinterested readers and will actually destroy the fun and adventure in reading. Why should we extinguish the very skill that promotes life-long learning?!

The Common Core math standards are atrocious. Homework from my children consist of math worksheets that are far too easy (a whole page of multiplication problems of 1x__ and 0x___). Others contain unfamiliar vocabulary, concepts, and techniques. I was unable to assist in their understanding because I did not know how it was taught to them or applied – there were no explanations. And I have a masters-level education with classes in calculus! These standards discourage parental involvement!

The testing is excessive and personal data to be collected infringes on my and my family’s right to privacy. Race, socio-economic level, gender, religion, political affiliation, SS#, medical information, etc. are not this states’ business and certainly not the federal government’s business in conjunction with education. I have found no outlined provisions protecting me and my family from obtaining this kind of information under the guise of “education.”

As an educator, I am a speech/language pathologist whose job is to support education and the curriculum by remediating speech and language disorders. This past year with the implementation of math and language arts Common Core, the amount of testing has doubled. I had extreme difficulty in getting students for therapy; many were either testing, reviewing for a test, or discussing answers from the test, interfering with quality learning time.

The Common Core was also too hastily implemented. There were not enough manuals for both teachers and students. Computerized testing systems part of implementation of Common core were not ready at the beginning of the school year and required modifications and training throughout the year. Teachers were told at faculty meetings at my two schools at the beginning of the year that implementation of the Common Core was like “learning how to fly an airplane while building it all while it’s in the air.”

The Common Core math standards fail to meet students’ needs at both ends of the learning continuum. Teachers are given a “road map” that tells them what, how, and when to teach via an internet site shown on a white screen. I observed one 3rd grade class complete the math portion of the curriculum halfway through the 2nd semester (not following the “road map”). This left 6 weeks to study/review for district assessments without any new material to learn. What a waste of teaching/learning time! Another 3rd grade class directly across the hall struggled to maintain the pace required to complete the content in time for district assessments. The students had whole portions of the curriculum that were never learned, let alone mastered, due to the required delivery of content. The Common Core math standards failed students in both classrooms.

As a law-abiding, tax-paying, voting citizen I am outraged at how this Common Core of educational standards was adopted for our children. The people using the standards (parents and educators) were not given adequate time or representation to review the standards, studying monetary costs, and researching validity or superiority to standards already in place either in Utah or other states. Also, adopting these standards undermines the very strength of the American system – striving for excellence through competition, rigorous testing for validity, research and development of best-practices, and consumer choice. We are not allowed to choose from the best to achieve the best.

And, what if I want to “opt out” of the standards all-together? Private, chartered, and home schooling will all be required to use the same standards to prepare for SAT, ACT, and other college entrance exams that are aligned to the Common Core. What kind of choice is that?!

If anything, I ask that the implementation of the Common Core standards be suspended until a more rigorous review is made and before more of my money is spent!

I received the letter below from a teacher who wanted to share his concerns about Common Core.

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

My name is Stuart Harper, I am a first year high school physics teacher in St. George. I have a deep love and passion for teaching, not teaching for teaching’s sake, but actually giving meaningful education. I have only recently been introduced to common core (my first encounter with it was about two years ago) and I am gravely concerned by it. The things that concern me the most about it are: 1) the way it is presented and pushed upon us in our teacher training programs (even at BYU), 2) the lack of control we have over its content, 3) the awful quality of its math core, 4) the over-emphasis on testing, 5) the massive burdens on schools for curriculum changes and data collection, and 6) how its focus drives schools deeper into the political realm and further from real education.

Now before I dive into my points I want to address something that I had to learn from experience. Many people say “well this is just the core, you have as much freedom as you want to teach what you want.” (If I hear that overused apple analogy any more I am going to scream.) I have found that in the field that this is not true. Teachers, under pressure by superiors in government positions to perform or else, are driven more and more to teach just the core. I have seen many teachers do this, and it saddens me. I look at my own core, physics, which currently hasn’t been hit yet by common core though it is coming soon, and I see so much great physics that I would never dream of leaving out. But I have talked with a few teachers here in Utah that have confessed that they teach only the core. So anyone that tries to diminish the importance of the issue by saying the teachers have all the freedom they need to teach what they want must be unaware or totally numb to the suffocating constriction of these government restrictions.

The first time I was introduced to common core was at BYU. I was taking a class on classroom management from the Mckay School of education. The teacher, an adjunct faculty from an adjacent district, told us about this new “common core” and how it would help so many people. The thing I still remember her saying was “And we really need you to be on board with this. We are really counting on the new wave of teachers to help push this through.” I didn’t think it was too odd, simply because I did not yet know what it was. When I did about a semester later, I started vocalizing my concerns in my education classes. One of my teachers brushed aside my concerns in front of the whole class saying that it was inevitable, “that Utah will kick against the pricks but when the money starts calling it will fall right in place.” I was abashed by that. It took a long time to even convince my sister (an elementary ed major) of its flaws due to the indoctrination of some of BYU’s instructors. (Please understand, I love BYU. Their Physics Education program from the college of physical and mathematical sciences is the best in the nation for a reason, but I have many concerns about the Mckay school that I will not go into here.) Across the board I have found that those who tout Common Core’s virtues scream them out so loud that it becomes clear that they are trying to cover for it’s massive flaws, and that to me is a great concern.

Second, is the lack of control over the core’s content at the federal level. I have no control in Washington DC, and very little in Salt Lake. I would prefer having the control at the county level, where I can have a say, but that is another subject for another time. How any educator in their right mind can surrender control of what they are supposed to teach to some network of desk bureaucrats thousands of miles away from their classroom is beyond me. It is the height of insanity. Many people have said that this will make it easier for people who move from state to state. That fraction of people, compared to the national population, is laughably small, and is not worth the billions of dollars in deficit spending that we are killing ourselves with to “help.” I was raised in New Mexico, during a time when they were experimenting with a new way to teach writing and spelling. This “New English” turned out to be a dismal failure across the district, and it was very quickly changed at the state. That probably would have never been corrected under the common core system. Too much federal red tape. But even then, there was a whole generation of students, myself included, that struggled greatly with writing and spelling. In fact, it wasn’t until high school, when I finally got a private writing tutor that I actually learned the rules of English that most people I know take for granted.

This problem is already here, but not as much with English (at least as I understand) as it is with math. I am appalled by the dictatorial way that it has been changed to a sub-par system that every math teacher and principle I have talked to opposes and despises. I have yet to meet a single person who thinks this new system is a good thing, in education and out. Those students who I have talked to about it are confused, discouraged, and don’t like it at all. This concerns me greatly because as a physics teacher I count on my students on knowing algebra before they enter my class. Now I realize that I am going to have to teach two classes in one, because I have no clue how many of them know math.

The rest of the concerns that I have listed I hope are obvious to those who are knowledgeable on common core. Please, for the sake of our children let us stop this awful takeover and bring control of our classroom home.

– Stuart Harper

We’ve all heard the line, “those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat the past,” or some variation of it. We all know history is vital, especially the history of the founding of our country. So why cut national history tests unless you really want to deemphasize the importance of history?

http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2013/07/25/national-civics-history-tests-disappear

“The National Assessment of Educational Progress exams in civics, U.S. history, and geography have been indefinitely postponed for fourth and twelfth graders. The Obama administration says this is due to a $6.8 million sequestration budget cut. The three exams will be replaced by a single, new test: Technology and Engineering Literacy.”

Really? A $6.8 million budget cut and they take out US History tests? Not that I’m a fan of NAEP or anything, but if you’re going to cut something, I can think of a trillion places that would have a lot more economic benefit to our nation.