This article was sent in by a couple of folks who were shocked to see Arne Duncan openly advocating for education from birth. This is something we have previously heard talked about but here it is out in the open.
It begs the question: “What is the role of fed government in early childhood education?”
Indeed, Parent Led Reform, an organization that projects parental power into education reform- and which I am lucky enough to represent asked Arne Duncan, Secretary of Department of Education just that.
He replied: “Our goal is to partner/w states to increase learning opportunities for children from birth to age 5.”
In other words, Obama’s P-K Early Childhood Program is Common Core Standards for babies, and is scheduled to roll out into the states in a similar fashion. The “P” is not short for preschool; it stands for “Prenatal.”
Just like with Common Core, Early Childhood is being introduced in the summer- after the legislative sessions have ended. It is being sold as a hurray-package for parents, that finally somebody will save the day of poor single parents and their uneducated children.
Dozens of New York city principals have signed an article the Washington Post published regarding the extreme Common Core assessments. Here’s a clip that says it all.
“Even if these tests were assessing students’ performance on tasks aligned with the Common Core Standards, the testing sessions—two weeks of three consecutive days of 90-minute (and longer for some) periods—were unnecessarily long, requiring more stamina for a 10-year-old special education student than of a high school student taking an SAT exam. Yet, for some sections of the exams, the time was insufficient for the length of the test. When groups of parents, teachers and principals recently shared students’ experiences in their schools, especially during the ELA exams with misjudged timing expectations, we learned that frustration, despondency, and even crying were common reactions among students. The extremes were unprecedented: vomiting, nosebleeds, suicidal ideation, and even hospitalization.”
The more one studies about Common Core documents and what our elected officials are saying, the more one sees the lack of information they have of the big picture. It’s truly as if they just don’t want to see, hear, or speak the truth. Here is a letter sent to State School Board members from a citizen that took it upon herself to do her homework, attend meetings, listen to what our elected officials have to say, and then put the big picture together.
*****************
Dear Elected Officials:
I am a part of “We the People”. You are not in your position because you are smarter than the rest of us. You are in your elected office because you chose to rise up and say, “I will serve the rest of you if you elect me.” You were elected because We gave you permission to serve us. You are in your office because “We the People” put you there. We decided you could do your job after you communicated with Us what your plans were. You are to report to The People your intentions.
Somehow that seems have been lost in the transition between you moving from civilian to a government representative of the people. You have decided that you know better than We. I am here to tell you, you don’t. I don’t care what letters you have after your name. I don’t care where you went to school. I don’t care what your party affiliation is. You do not know better than me as it relates to the education of my children. Yet, Dixie Allen of the Utah State School Board stated in an email exchange with Christel Swasey, “Local Teachers and parents don’t know everything about what is quality education,” http://whatiscommoncore.wordpress.com/2013/04/19/utahns-discuss-common-core-math/ Really? Why then do we entrust the children of Utah to their parents and teachers? What an arrogant statement! She also states in her rebuttal to Christel’s questions regarding the quality of the math standards that her experience as a teacher for 26 years and as a mother she is qualified to weigh in on this debate as a member of the State Board of Education. I have been a teacher and I am a mother yet I am not qualified to determine what a quality education is for my children according to her first statement. How does it work that her ability to judge comes from the very things she condemns as inadequate for the rest of the population?
Some very intelligent, educated people with letters after their names have done an incredible amount of research. Some very intelligent, concerned parents have put in hours and hours researching articles, government documents, business practices and information, and claims as they relate to the Common Core Standards, Data Collection, and Computer Adaptive Testing. These people may not hold a government office, but they have done their due diligence in researching this issue. For you to dismiss their efforts because you hold a borrowed position is beyond arrogant. All of you have an obligation to do all the research we have and weigh all the outcomes of this issue before you plow ahead and make it policy and law. If there is dissent, as an elected official you have an obligation to consider the arguments, not just offer political answers to fit your agenda. I can see that you have not done your due diligence in learning about all aspects of the Computer Adaptive Testing because it is evident in the S.A.G.E. meetings I have watched online and attended in person.
I am gravely concerned about Utah’s contract with A.I.R. and adoption of Computer Adaptive Tests for our children. I have done a tremendous amount of research on the company A.I.R. and also have personal knowledge of how C.A.T.’s affect children as my children have taken these types of tests before. It was an incredibly negative educational experience for them. A.I.R. is the company Utah contracted with to provide the Computer Adaptive Testing under the title S.A.G.E. and it replaces the current CRT tests. A.I.R.’s specialty is behavioral testing. http://www.air.org/about/?fa=viewContent&content_id=96 Their mission and vision as stated from their website:
Mission
AIR’s mission is to conduct and apply the best behavioral and social science research and evaluation towards improving peoples’ lives, with a special emphasis on the disadvantaged.
Vision
Within the United States and internationally, AIR will be the preeminent organization that
produces improvements in education, health, and the workforce;
addresses the needs of individuals, organizations, and communities;
designs and advances statistical and research methods;
causes practitioners and organizations to adopt evidence-based practices; and
informs public understanding and policy making by the best evidence.
They are a company that specializes in behavioral and social science research. Their first bullet point on their vision is to produce improvements in education, heath, and the workforce. It is a coincidence they are the “preeminent organization” within the USA to produce these improvements just as The Affordable Care Act is ready to go online right about the same time Common Core is to be fully implemented?
What does this have to do with academics? So teachers now get to know why little Johnny doesn’t understand math on a behavioral level? Teachers are supposed to be psychologists too? Actually no, A.I.R. has psychometricians who will analyze the behavioral markers in the test. There was a considerable amount of dissent at the Davis County S.A.G.E. meeting about the need for a psychometrician to analyze the student’s test. At the Davis County S.A.G.E meeting the Assistant Superintendent of Schools over testing, Judy Park, said that there was a great deal of misinformation about what a psychometrician does. She stated a psychometrician was someone who simply analyzed the academic test data; a statistician. A member of the audience corrected her and informed the rest of us what a psychometrician does. “Psychometricians play a major role in studying and analyzing human behavior. Their findings help companies hire people who are best suited for certain positions. Potential employees can benefit from tests that reveal what environments best showcase their skills. As more companies and industries incorporate psychometrics into their human resources operations, the potential for increased productivity and happier employers and employees grows.” ( What is a psychometrician?) Judy Park was also asked if behavioral markers would be imbedded into the tests to which she emphatically said no. Why then does Utah need to do business with a company whose purpose is to provide behavioral testing (according to their mission statement) and employs psychometricians to analyze the behavioral markers in testing data? Wouldn’t it be a huge waste of money if they aren’t doing what the company’s purpose is? Why do our children need to be analyzed for their personality traits and opinions? This type of testing has been employed by corporations for many years now. It helps them determine if a potential applicant is compatible with their company. I find it is a good business practice for potential applicants as they are aware of the test and take it in accordance with their own desires to be employed. It is another matter entirely to do this type of testing on children all in the name of academic rigor and without offering an option for parents to opt out of having their children participate. Judy Park also stated parents can opt their children out of the testing but reminded the audience that schools must have a 95% participation rate on the testing or else the school is classified as failing and would lose funding (SB 271). Isn’t that extortion?
A report from the Logan S.A.G.E. meeting included these comments from the meeting commentators.
“One lady was concerned that the adaptive nature of the tests was designed to make all kids fail 50% of the questions no matter how good they were. Ms. Park said it was ok and noted that many kids already do not do well on tests and are used to it.” Children already know they are failures so it won’t surprise them if they do poorly? This is supposed to be good for our children? “She said that the kids would be prepared and trained for what this new system would be like.”
“The lady restated that she was concerned with kids taking a test that didn’t end until the test adapted to outwit and fail them, stating ‘At which point does the test let up, once the child is vomiting?'”
Dr. Garrett said that it was going to be fun and challenging for good students to be newly presented with things in the test which they had never seen before or been taught before. He said that the kids will recognize when the test starts quizzing them on new, never before presented material, stating that they would feel empowered that they must be doing well on the test and that it would be a positive thing for them.”( Logan S.A.G.E. meeting ) What child do you know that will find more testing fun and exciting? The students are going to be tested on material they have never seen before or have never been taught and this is supposed to be fun? Are these comments meant to pacify parent’s concerns? This sounds like a recipe for disaster. When has anyone ever been empowered by being tested on something they don’t know anything about? Dr. Gary Thompson and his associate Edward D. Flint, Attorney at Law have spoken at great length about the ill effects of Computer Adaptive Testing on children. I would encourage you to read his letter to Superintendent Menlove.
These are a few of the points that Judy Park considers the positive points for the Computer Adaptive Testing:
“Children will no longer need an IEP for certain basic testing accommodations, such as the text being enlarged to a bigger font on the computer screen, taking breaks or extended time for tests.
The testing/data system will be available in Braille.”
Children will no longer need and IEP? Are you kidding me? This test is supposed to be the end all be all of solutions for a student’s complex learning disability? At the Davis County meeting I asked Judy Park what accommodations there were for students who could not take the SAGE test because of their IEP accommodations. She stated the only accommodations would be those offered by the test. What about students who need a verbal test? She stated there were no accommodations for that. I spoke with Superintendent Menlove the following week (May 3, 2013) in an impromptu meeting between him and other concerned parents and he stated there is a test that would be available for students with IEP testing accommodations. It is called the Utah Alternate Assessment or U.A.A. Shouldn’t (Judy Park) Assistant Superintendent of Schools over testing know that this test is available for special needs students so that the students and their parents aren’t put through undue stress at test time? If she is aware of this then she lied at the meeting. If she isn’t aware this test exists, it begs the question, why not? She is in charge of testing for Utah.
This is the kind of double talk parents are getting from the State Board of Education. We ask questions and we either get 1/2 truths, outright lies, or apparent displays of incompetence. The question continues to be put forth, why would you commit Utah to this outrageous education policy? What are their answers? The party line is that “standards are not curriculum, the new testing is wonderful and will help teachers better teach to their student’s needs, the data will not leave the district and will be protected. The standards are internationally benchmarked and rigorous.”
I would like to ask the question, if this system is so wonderful, then why is there such dissent in Utah and all over the country for that matter? The concerns aren’t just coming from some crazy right wing faction. People from all political persuasions are concerned with the level of intrusion that will befall us all. In the Unitah S.A.G.E. meeting held by the USOE, some light was shed on Utah’s involvement with all of this education reform. ‘ Dixie (Allen) also repeatedly stated that Utah must do Common Core because otherwise we cannot buy curriculum to match our core because we don’t spend enough money on education and therefore the curricula vendors don’t cater to us. No one in the room agreed with her on needing more money, but she made this claim repeatedly. Then when the question “How much will these new curricula materials to match common core cost us?” was asked, the answer was “Nothing, we’re making our own.” ‘ (Unitah SAGE Meeting )
I have looked into what A.I.R. does. They have four current contracts is with USAID. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)is committed to increasing the sustainable impact of our development assistance programs through strategic alliances with the private sector. Such alliances enable the Agency to leverage private sector markets, expertise, interests, and assets in a manner that solves critical development problems and promotes effective market led development. USAID Contract with A.I.R.
This sounds great until you get to page 5 where they talk about their value to the private sector.
“Global Development Alliances provide businesses with a number of opportunities to achieve core business interests. By participating in a GDA, businesses have been able to improve supply chain quality and reliability; increase sales; expand their customer base and access to new markets; develop new products and services; reduce operating costs; increase productivity; improve distribution systems; increase access to sufficiently qualified and skilled talent;improve relationships with key stakeholders; increase brand awareness; and mitigate key business risks.
Furthermore, businesses have been able to leverage USAID capabilities and assets to drive results.
For example:
•…in the ICT sector has provided businesses with the mix of human capital needed to improve productivity, reduce investment risk, and expand business operations”
What does this have to do with computer adaptive testing in Utah? If A.I.R.’s contracted expertise is utilized by this government agency for the purpose of aiding countries around the world to partner businesses with human capitol needed to expand their business operations, then isn’t it strange Utah would only contract with them for academic testing? That isn’t their specialty. Their specialty is working with private businesses to test people to determine where those people can be utilized as human capitol to further economic development in those countries. Their job is to aid countries in improving their workforce. I cannot comment on the value of this program for other countries around the world but it seems to me to be huge waste of A.I.R.’s talents to under-utilize them with only analyzing academic information from standardized test, unless they really are doing more with the tests our Utah children will be taking.
One of A.I.R.’s contracts with USAID is:
“EQUIP1 is an LWA cooperative agreement designed to provide technical assistance and services to USAID to raise the quality of student learning by improving teacher and school performance and increasing the level and quality of community involvement in basic education. EQUIP1 addresses all levels of education, from early childhood development and school readiness to primary and secondary education, adult basic education, pre-vocational training, and the provision of life skills.” EQUIP1 Contract
Clearly they are able to handle the complexities of education as it relates to skill development for the purposes of future employment. Again, this sounds great on the surface until you evaluate the desire for businesses to have “human capitol” that meets their exact employment needs. Businesses could save a great deal of money if they were privy to student data that would allow them to hand pick whom would be best for their business. They would know before a student ever applied for work with them whether that child would one day fit their business model. There are many things wrong with this approach not the least of which is the statement above that they help with readiness for “basic education and pre-vocational training. Shouldn’t a child choose what they want to do in life free from these parameters? You got to decide what you wanted to be when you grew up. Should we not afford our children the same opportunity free from invasive testing and corporate interference? Should they not get to choose how far they want to take their education, or will the test decide for them and tell them what they get to do? Computer Adaptive Testing is wrong for Utah’s children and should be immediately defunded. There is no place in our free society for this kind of invasion into a child’s psyche.
Nobody has to choose between relying on the proponents of Common Core, or relying on the opponents of Common Core.
To find out what Common Core really is and does to education and to liberty, study for yourself.
These are just a starter batch. There are more! Some of these are Utah-specific. If you are in another state, do a related word search to easily find your own.
The full contract that Utah has signed with the American Institutes for Research (if you can get a copy from the USOE; it is not online yet). Here is AIR’s common core implementation document.
————————–
Here are some explanations of each of the documents, and what you can learn from them.
————————-
The Race to the Top Grant Application – Utah got points for having a kid-tracking SLDS database system. Utah got more points for having adopted Common Core. This was how we got into it. Despite not winning the grant money, we remained in these systems.
The No Child Left Behind Waiver – This shows the 15% cap the federal government put on top of the copyrighted, unamendable Common Core standards.
The State Longitudinal Database System Grant – This is a federally paid-for database that every state in the US now has. It tracks students within the state. Aggregated data ion students is sent from this system to the federal EdFacts Exchange.
The lawsuit against the Department of Education – The Electronic Privacy Information Center has sued the DOE for destroying the previously data-privacy protective federal FERPA. The lawsuit explains which terms were redefined, which agencies now have legal access to the private data of students, and much more.
The copyright on Common Core held by CCSSO/NGA – The fact that there are “terms of use” and a copyright shows that we have no local control over the standards which are written behind closed doors in D.C.
The report entitled “For Each And Every Child” from the Equity and Excellence Commission – This report was commissioned by Obama. It reveals that redistribution of wealth is the real reason that Obama wants a national education system.
The Cooperative Agreements 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 DOE has broken laws like the General Educational Provisions Act and the 10th Amendment. It mandates the synchronizing of tests and the sharing of data to triangulate the SBAC, PARCC and DOE.
The speeches of President Obama on education – Obama’s goal is total control of everything– 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 exact same academic standards and to underpin every standard with environmental propaganda. He also likes having global data on kids and stresses the term “sustainable reform” which is “irreversible reform”.
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 it works until all the tests and curriculum aligns with the standards” so he’s writing curriculum for us all.
The speeches of David Coleman, a noneducator, the architect of the Common Core ELA standards and now promoted to College Board President –He mocks narrative writing, he’s diminished the percentage of classic literature that’s allowable in the standards, he’s not been elected, he’s never taught school, yet he’s almost singlehandedly destroyed the quality and liberty of an English teacher’s classroom. And as he’s now the College Board President, he’s aligning the SAT to his version of what Common standards should be. This will hurt colleges.
The federal websites such as the EdFacts Exchange, the Common Education Data Standards, the National Data Collection Model, and the Data Quality Campaign, sites because three of these four ask us to give personally identifiable information on students, from our state database. -The first link shows what we already give to the federal government; the others show what the federal government is requesting that we share, which does include intimate, personally identifiable information.
The Common Core English and Math standards – These are the actual standards.
The full contract that Utah has signed with the American Institutes for Research (if you can get a copy from the USOE; it is not online yet). Here is AIR’s common core implementation document. – This shows that AIR is not an academic testing group but a behavioral research institute. Parents and teachers may not see the test questions.
Last year we successfully got the Utah State Board of Education to get us out of the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (a hollow victory). The SBAC is one of 2 federally funded assessment consortia meant to test Common Core students, and through its grant application push states onto Common Core. Utah signed onto SBAC in our Race to the Top application and became one of 17 governing member states. When the state board voted to exit SBAC last year, the state office of education was quite upset. From inside the USOE, we received a tip that they were writing a new Request for Proposal (RFP) for an assessment partner in such a way that only an SBAC partner entity could be chosen for our new assessment partner. We published this on this website and were told that was ridiculous by a couple state board members. In January of 2013, the USOE announced they had selected AIR (American Institutes of Research) as our new assessment partner. AIR is the official partner of SBAC. AIR has a subversive agenda and fits well with the SBAC who is led by Bill Ayers’ friend Linda-Darling Hammond, an advocate for teaching social justice in the classroom, and one who has a very poor track record for success in actual education outcomes. The State Superintendent said of the 13 or so applicants for our assessment program, AIR was the “only organization” that met all our requirements (in spite of the fact that at the legislative hearing in January where this was announced, there was already another computer adaptive test organization being piloted in Utah that was doing the job). The SBAC just released sample Common Core tests online. Here is what you are greeted with when you begin the test. AIR is indistinguishable from SBAC. Utah never left the SBAC except to exit a direct relationship status as a governing consortia member. We encourage you to contact your legislators and tell them to get us out of the SBAC and all its affiliates. Defund the $39 million contract the state office signed us onto.
Where is the evidence to support the rhetoric surrounding the CCSS? This is not data-driven decision making.
This is a decision grasping for data… Yet this nation will base the future of its entire public education system, and its children, upon this lack of evidence.
– Dr. Christopher Tienken, Seton Hall University, NJ
In the Education Administration Journal, the AASA Journal of Scholarship and Practice (Winter 2011 / Volume 7, No. 4) there’s an article by Dr. Christopher Tienken of Seton Hall University that clearly explains the utter lack of empirical evidence for adopting Common Core. The full article, “Common Core: An Example of Data-less Decision Making,” is available online, and following are some highlights:
Although a majority of U.S. states and territories have “made the CCSS the legal law of their land in terms of the mathematics and language arts curricula,” and although “over 170 organizations, education-related and corporations alike, have pledged their support,” still “the evidence presented by its developers, the National Governors Association (NGA) and Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), seems lacking,” and research on the topic suggests “the CCSS and those who support them are misguided,” writes Dr. Tienken.
Why?
“The standards have not been validated empirically and no metric has been set to monitor the intended and unintended consequences they will have on the education system and children,” he writes.
Tienken and many other academics have said that Common Core adoption begs this question: “Surely there must be quality data available publically to support the use of the CCSS to transform, standardize, centralize and essentially de-localize America‘s public education system,” and “surely there must be more compelling and methodologically strong evidence available not yet shared with the general public or education researchers to support the standardization of one of the most intellectually diverse public education systems in the world. Or, maybe there is not?”
Tienken calls incorrect the notion that American education is lagging behind international competitors and does not believe the myth that academic tests can predict future economic competitiveness.
“Unfortunately for proponents of this empirically vapid argument it is well established that a rank on an international test of academic skills and knowledge does not have the power to predict future economic competitiveness and is otherwise meaningless for a host of reasons.”
He observes: “Tax, trade, health, labor, finance, monetary, housing, and natural resource policies, to name a few, drive our economy, not how students rank on the Trends in International Math and Science Study (TIMSS)” or other tests.
Most interestingly, Tienken observes that the U.S. has had a highly internationally competitive system up until now. “The U.S. already has one of the highest percentages of people with high school diplomas and college degrees compared to any other country and we had the greatest number of 15 year-old students in the world score at the highest levels on the 2006 PISA science test (OECD, 2008; OECD, 2009; United Nations, 2010). We produce more researchers and scientists and qualified engineers than our economy can employ, have even more in the pipeline, and we are one of the most economically competitive nations on the globe (Gereffi & Wadhwa, 2005; Lowell, et al., 2009; Council on Competitiveness, 2007; World Economic Forum, 2010).
Tienken calls Common Core “a decision in search of data” ultimately amounting to “nothing more than snake oil.” He is correct. The burden of proof is on the proponents to show that this system is a good one.
He writes: “Where is the evidence to support the rhetoric surrounding the CCSS? This is not data-driven decision making. This is a decision grasping for data… Yet this nation will base the future of its entire public education system, and its children, upon this lack of evidence. Many of America‘s education associations already pledged support for the idea and have made the CCSS major parts of their national conferences and the programs they sell to schools.
This seems like the ultimate in anti-intellectual behavior coming from what claim to be intellectual organizations now acting like charlatans by vending products to their members based on an untested idea and parroting false claims of standards efficacy.”
Further, Dr. Tienken reasons:
“Where is the evidence that national curriculum standards will cause American students to score at the top of international tests or make them more competitive? Some point to the fact that many of the countries that outrank the U.S. have national, standardized curricula. My reply is there are also nations like Canada, Australia, Germany, and Switzerland that have very strong economies, rank higher than the U.S. on international tests of mathematics and science consistently, and do not have a mandated, standardized set of national curriculum standards.”
Lastly, Dr. Tienken asks us to look at countries who have nationalized and standardized education, such as China and Singapore: “China, another behemoth of centralization, is trying desperately to crawl out from under the rock of standardization in terms of curriculum and testing (Zhao, 2009) and the effects of those practices on its workforce. Chinese officials recognize the negative impacts a standardized education system has had on intellectual creativity. Less than 10% of Chinese workers are able to function in multi-national corporations (Zhao, 2009).
I do not know of many Chinese winners of Nobel Prizes in the sciences or in other the intellectual fields. China does not hold many scientific patents and the patents they do hold are of dubious quality (Cyranoski, 2010).
The same holds true for Singapore. Authorities there have tried several times to move the system away from standardization toward creativity. Standardization and testing are so entrenched in Singapore that every attempt to diversify the system has failed, leaving Singapore a country that has high test scores but no creativity. The problem is so widespread that Singapore must import creative talent from other countries”.
According to Dr. Tienken, Common Core is a case of oversimplification. It is naive to believe that all children would benefit from mastering the same set of skills, or that it would benefit the country in the long run, to mandate sameness. He observes that Common Core is “an Orwellian policy position that lacks a basic understanding of diversity and developmental psychology. It is a position that eschews science and at its core, believes it is appropriate to force children to fit the system instead of the system adjusting to the needs of the child.”
Oh, how we agree!
Since when do we trust bureaucracies more than we trust individuals to make correct decisions inside a classroom or a school district? Since when do we agree force children to fit a predetermined system, instead of having a locally controlled, flexible system that can adjust to the needs of a child?
What madness (or money?) has persuaded even our most American-as-apple-pie organizations — even the national PTA, the U.S. Army, the SAT, most textbook companies and many governors– to advocate for Common Core, when there never was a real shred of valid evidence upon which to base this country-changing decision?
“It just seems like a lose-lose all the way around.
It may interest you to know that all of us math teachers got an e-mail from Diana Suddreth (state math curriculum rep) about the attack that cc has come under in our state government. The e-mail was saying how concerned she was that the state reps are starting to listen to the parents and was asking for teachers state-wide to start speaking up for the core and defend it to our reps to let them know how great it is.
We here at ____________ got that e-mail and laughed out loud because it would seem a little funny to defend it when we’re on the side of the parents…
We have a storage room full of old Alg, Alg2, and Geometry textbooks that sit no longer in use because of cc.”
I want to be very clear about something right from the start. The anti-Common Core movement is not just about the standards. It’s about the entire nationalization/globalization agenda that goes along with it. However, this article serves to show the weakness of the Common Core math standards themselves and what it means for Utah students.
In 2007, Utah adopted new standards which were rated an A- by the Fordham Foundation. This was a big improvement over our prior standards which Fordham rated a D. They later rated the Common Core math standards an A- after receiving several hundred thousand dollars from the Gates Foundation to do a review. Money talks. The Gates Foundation is very interested in getting everyone on these standards, and so is the federal government. If you don’t know the connections, watch this video. In their analysis comparing Utah’s math standards and Common Core, they stated:
The Bottom Line
With some minor differences, Common Core and Utah both cover the essential content for a rigorous, K-12 mathematics program. Utah’s standards are briefly stated and usually clear, making them easier to read and follow than Common Core. In addition, the high school content is organized so that standards addressing specific topics, such as quadratic functions, are grouped together in a mathematically coherent way. The organization of the Common Core is more difficult to navigate, in part because standards dealing with related topics sometimes appear separately rather than together.
The chief weakness in Utah’s standards stems from the lack of specific content expectations in the development of arithmetic, and in the failure to make arithmetic a focus in the appropriate grades. Common Core provides admirable focus and explicitly requires standard methods and procedures, enhancements that would benefit Utah’s standards.
In other words, our 2007 standards were pretty good and could have used a little tweaking to make them stronger. If the USOE had actually implemented the external reviewer’s suggestions, we would probably have had some of the very best standards in America. Dr. Hung-Hsi Wu, math professor at Berkeley and Utah’s external reviewer of the 2007 standards, was shocked months after reviewing the final draft of our standards, that the USOE had failed to implement any of his recommendations. Commenting to the USOE he wrote:
“Nicole [Paulson at the USOE], Thank you for your courteous note. I can understand your consternation upon reading the quote in Jim Milgam’s letter of my reaction to the revised standards (incidentally, he quoted me correctly), but if you realize that I had taken for granted that most of what I recommended would be implemented, then you would also understand why I was so shocked when I was reluctantly made to read the revision.”
What followed was a list of several critical items that should have been included but the USOE left out. Why did they leave them out? It’s unknown for certain, but it is known that they hated the fact that we succeeded in making them raise Utah’s then D-rated standards. Standards are not a priority for the USOE, getting federal money was the driving incentive for applying for Race to the Top money where we agreed to adopt new untested Common Core standards, sight-unseen.
Dr. David Wright in the math department at BYU, was one of the few mathematicians that worked on the Utah 2007 math standards. I recently corresponded with him comparing where Utah was at with those standards, and where we are now with Common Core.
Under the 2007 standards, most students would take the following schedule of classes:
Some students who are well prepared could take algebra in 7th grade allowing them to accelerate. Some students, myself included when I was younger, double up and take geometry and algebra 2 together in order to accelerate. That option is no longer possible under the new integrated approach to Common Core.
Under the new Common Core standards, students get an integrated approach to math meaning there are no longer discrete years of math, but a blend of subject matter.
Math 7 (7th grade): contains some pre-algebra/algebra Math 8 (8th grade): contains some algebra Secondary Math 1 (9th grade): Finish some of algebra 1 and some geometry Secondary Math 2 (10th grade): Finish algebra 1 and some Geometry and some algebra 2 Secondary Math 3 (11th grade): Finish algebra 2, geometry and some Pre-Calculus AP Calculus: It is the hope of the USOE that students will be prepared for AP calculus without a year of pre-calculus. In reality, many students will struggle without precalculus.
According to Dr. Wright: “If you are not in honors Math 1 by ninth grade, the USOE does not see you prepared for calculus. Many students who take the honors Math 1, Math 2, and Math 3 would still be better off in pre-calculus instead of calculus because their algebra skills will not be good enough.”
Some students will be able to take Math 1 in 8th grade, if they accelerated early, but for most students they will either have to skip pre-calculus to take calculus in 12th grade, or take pre-calculus in 12th grade and wait till college for an authentic calculus course. Honors students get a little more content depth but no real acceleration to advance faster.
The problems of Common Core math in Utah are two-fold.
1) In spite of the Gates influenced Fordham grade of A-, Common Core sets the United States back from where we should be. The Common Core proponents used to tout how the standards were internationally benchmarked. That’s been proven false and those statements removed. Dr. Jim Milgram, Stanford math professor and the only professional mathematician on the validation committee, has written standards and worked with international standards for many years. Here are a couple of comments from him:
“The Common Core standards claim to be ‘benchmarked against the international standards’ but this phrase is meaningless. They are actually two or more years behind international expectations by eighth grade, and only fall further behind as they talk about grades 8-12. Indeed, they don’t even fully cover the material in a solid geometry course, or in the second year algebra course.”
“While the difference between these standards and those of the top states at the end of eighth grade is perhaps somewhat more than one year, the difference is more like two years when compared to the expectations of the high-achieving countries — particularly most of the nations of East Asia.”
2) The USOE is constructivist oriented. They told Utahns that we would have portability of students with other states as a feature of Common Core, but then adopted a different schedule of learning which will not allow for it. They did this to implement constructivist math across the state. Trainings by the USOE for teachers have included the nonsense that students don’t need to learn their times tables. Good teachers will ignore that, but the fact is, the USOE actively looks to promote this philosophy in their teacher training.
The bottom line is, Common Core math is not internationally benchmarked, not going to prepare as many children for an authentic calculus class by the end of high school as our 2007 standards would, not allow for portability of students with other states because only Vermont adopted the integrated method with Utah, and the push for constructivism will further damage our children’s math skills and thinking. The best thing Utah could do is immediately go back to our 2007 standards, and implement the changes suggested by Dr. Wu, the external reviewer. Readopting those standards would be superior to Common Core and they would be honest Utah math standards.
Previously posted to this site is an article talking about the indoctrination coming to Common Core. Here’s the article for you to read if you missed it.
This post is going to demonstrate how the Utah State Office of Education is allowing social justice curriculum to move forward in schools. This is not only inappropriate, but immoral as well. It’s not good for education, family relationships, public discourse, or preserving our nations liberty.
Here are two videos.
The first demonstrates Common Core USOE recommended materials from Zaner-Bloser (if your children are using this, I would complain and get them off it now even if you need to homeschool). The second demonstrates some informational texts. Please share this post with your legislators and ask them to get us out of Common Core.
See below the videos for the USOE review of “Voices”. I didn’t post these this morning or I might have noticed the video has an error. On the video, it says the Voices books are Recommended Primary (meaning you can use it and nothing else to fulfill the Common Core Standards). Actually, they are Recommended Limited, for the reason below that the books aren’t broad enough to cover all the ELA standards so additional materials would be needed to supplement this.
Enter ISBN #: 9780736798808 (“Voices” Literature & Writing)
USOE Evaluation:
Voices Literature and Writing focuses on oral language and writing through teacher read-alouds. The entire year builds on a central theme divided into six units. Each unit has an essential question and ends in a culminating writing project with a built-in presentation component that lends itself to the oral language strand of the Common Core. Teacher read-alouds are the base of this program. The discussions and questioning provided engage the students in the higher level thinking required for the Common Core. Vocabulary instruction and ELL support are included. A rubric is provided to assess discussions. Although the discussion piece is a strength, most of the resources were fiction where the Common Core requires a stronger nonfiction emphasis. The writing instruction component includes a model, mini-lessons organized around the six traits, and grammar usage. A variety of writing types reinforce the expectations of the Common Core. The assessment component consists of read-aloud tests, writing tests, and end of theme tests. The re-teaching provided is explicit, helpful and provides practice worksheets to reinforce the learning. The test generator provided allows you to build your own test, but the multiple choice questions are low level thinking and would not prepare students for the rigor of the Common Core testing. The essay questions are more effective but few in numbers. The technology piece in this program is weak. It includes audio CDs for teacher read-alouds, teaching master CDs and the digital test generator. Teacher materials are organized into readily accessible, durable boxes. There are no student materials. This is recommended limited because it covers the speaking/listening and writing standards of the Common Core.
Enter ISBN #: 9780736799362 (“Voices” Leveled Library)
USOE Evaluation: Recommended Student Resource
Voices Leveled Library is set up to match the Voices Literature and Writing program but does not always correlate with the unit themes very well. The leveling is appropriate and accurate, but not always rigorous or engaging. Within each unit there were four paired leveled readers with a strong non-fiction emphasis. Most of the readers are well organized, with colorful graphics, maps and tables. The non-fiction is organized with a table of contents, a glossary and an index. Where there are a few comprehension questions, they are limited in scope and do not pertain to a particular comprehension strategy.
This library deals with a large collection of subjects in a variety of categories. It includes biographical and historical texts, folktales, historical accounts, and world events. It should be emphasized that readings in this collection are provided as examples to help students learn to read a variety of texts and to understand an author’s point of view or bias in both literary and informational readings. Teachers should take the time to become well-acquainted with each text in the collection and to help students understand the context for each. Some of the texts may deal with issues that may be thought to be controversial and reflect the political climate or stance of the author. It would be advisable to incorporate many of the readings within the context of social studies instruction, so that students will be able to perceive and analyze the historical significance of the text, discuss the concept of bias, and develop the ability to be critical consumers of information.
The more one studies about 
