Category Archives: Concerns

Concerns

STEM is Dead in Utah Courtesy of the USOE

17 Comments

dixiecupcalculusSeveral years ago I was involved in what has been called “The Math Wars”. Alpine School District had quit teaching the times tables, long division, and some other basic math skills, to children under the promise that a constructivist (ie. children need to construct their own knowledge) approach to math would deepen their skills. This was an abominable failure. Even at BYU where 2 math education professors got permission (by someone over the math department’s dead body) to teach a class of honors calculus to freshmen with this method. The result was a disaster. Honors calculus students measuring Dixie Cups with rulers while regular students were learning how to integrate. Predictably to everyone but those 2 professors teaching the constructivist class, their students scored below all 17 sections of non-honors calculus on the final exam. Their final defeat? Blame it on the test writer who had been creating the same test from the same objectives for years.

Unfortunately, with adoption of Common Core, the state of Utah took a bad idea that parents in Alpine School District hated, and decided to spread the love around the state. As parents slowly wake up to the horrors of constructivist math and wonder what happened to their child’s love of math, there will begin a new revolt that will bring tens of thousands of angry parents raining down on the heads of the state leadership.

Don’t believe me? Consider how upset a parent is when their child goes off to college with straight A’s in math and winds up in remedial math. At last look, UVU has a 70% remediation rate for incoming freshmen in math. In fact, it’s so bad, they don’t just have remedial math classes at UVU, they have a remedial math DEPARTMENT. SLCC has roughly the same percentage of remediation. That’s a pathetic waste of taxpayer dollars that when tens of thousands of students arrive they can’t do high school math and need remediation, and before someone suggests it’s because young people are arriving after serving LDS missions and have simply forgotten how to do math, that’s been examined and it’s a trivial reduction in the percentage.

Let me illustrate with a video. I recently sat down with an anonymous but very involved person in the Utah education arena, and reviewed a few books. Interactive math, Saxon math, and the Utah State Office of Education’s (USOE) own home grown math book. Watch the horror show demonstrating these textbooks and then read below.

http://youtu.be/FdgGqVq-akg

Here’s what the state shows on their RIMS database for schools and districts to pick textbooks from. I’ll start with Saxon.

Saxon math-Recommended Limited

“Evaluation: Textbook review for Saxon Algebra I. Overall, the program matches the Utah Core Standards for Algebra 57.75%. The following is a breakdown of the evaluation by individual Utah Core Standards for Algebra I: …(removed specific line items for space…read it on the site) This program does not develop concepts for deep understanding. It provides few examples and the flow of the program is missing, very disjointed.“

If you didn’t watch the video, you’re missing out. Saxon is full of examples while the other programs have NONE.

This isn’t the first time I’ve witnessed a hit job on Saxon math (link 2). Saxon was developed by an Air Force Engineer turned educator and a few years ago when I evaluated the top 10 scoring schools in Utah for math on standardized exams, 7 of the 10 schools were using Saxon. It’s a great program that builds skills and depth of understanding. It’s the type of math most of us grew up on and that we can look in the textbook and remember how to do a problem and help our children. In short, it shows how to do a problem, explains the concept, and gives students an opportunity to practice what they learned so they can obtain mastery over the knowledge.

Contrasted with…

Interactive Math-Recommended Primary

“Evaluation:
This non-traditional text approaches the study of mathematics through student-centered exploration and meaningful tasks. Teachers would begin the lesson by presenting the task for the day, and students and teachers would work on the tasks together as they develop their mathematical understanding of the topics. The format of this text encourages active learning of mathematics. Each unit in this text has a central problem or theme and focuses on several branches of mathematics including algebra, geometry, probability, graphing, statistics, and trigonometry using an integrated approach.
This text covers more than 80% of the 2012 Utah State Core Standards for Secondary I or Secondary I Honors.
Lessons consist of single-page individual or group tasks without traditional mathematical instruction or explanations. Mathematics is learned through the culture and practice that is developed within the classroom as students work on the various tasks.
Although topics are not easily~recognized by lesson titles, this text includes an index of mathematical ideas which makes it easier to find particular ideas. Problem sets are minimal but build depth of understanding. A nice glossary is included at the end of the text.”

church-of-constructivismRemember from the video above, Interactive math has declared the most important purpose of their book is to make math fun!!!

There is no line-by-line evaluation of the shortcomings of Interactive Math as there is with Saxon. It’s pathetically obvious from looking through the book that it’s devoid of content and yet the reviewer, obviously a disciple of religious constructivism, announces this text will produce “depth of understanding” from minimal problem sets. This comic is worth 1,000 words.

Finally we come to the third book, the USOE’s own creation which is similar to Interactive Math and it’s constructivist approach.

Open Education Math – The Mathematics Vision Project- Recommended Primary

This “textbook,” and I use that term very loosely since there is no instruction or examples, was also given a rating of “Recommended Primary” by the USOE. Convenient that you can rate your own product… It was developed by 5 school teachers, who as far as I know have no prior experience in writing textbooks, at least 3 of which are known constructivists, 2 from Alpine School District.

“Evaluation: The OER Secondary I textbook is designed to be an online textbook that may or may not be printed. The textboook will allow for future updates and improvements as well as teacher customization. The first edition of this online text addresses the first third of the 2012 Utah Core Standards for Secondary I Mathematics. The content of the text is accurate and represents the current research in mathematics. Each lesson begins with a task to help students develop an understanding of the core concepts to be learned. Teachers may need professional development to teach using tasks. There are extensive instructions and teacher notes to guide the teacher to teach each task. Some of the tasks have a lot of reading which may be challenging for ESL students. ~ The homework has three sections. The Ready section has problems that will help the student for upcoming concepts. The Set section contains practice problems for what is being developed in the current lesson. The Go section has problems that help students review concepts learned previously. The homework sets are not long and tedious so students can focus on what is being taught. ~ The Getting Ready Unit reviews ideas from previous courses that begin to connect the content that will be taught in Secondary I. This section may help during the transition to the~new core. ~ Each lesson begins with a task to help students develop an understanding of the core concepts to be learned. Teachers may need professional development to teach using tasks. There are extensive instructions to guide the teacher to teach each task. Many of the tasks have a lot of reading which may be challenging for ESL students. There are no materials at this time to address special educaiton students and ESL students. ~ There is an extensive section for parents that includes online resources such as the Kahn Academy videos and worked out examples of procedural problems. ~ ~ This book would require that teachers allow time for students to think and have a lot of discussion in the classroom.“

Wait a minute…this book relies on the Khan Academy videos to teach procedures? That’s convenient. Lets write a textbook and say, “we just want depth of learning, you go somewhere else to learn HOW to do math.”

Require teachers to allow time for a lot of discussion? What if those students actually want to learn math and not have their peers discussing what they ate for lunch?

Now the big lie. Current research says there are NO studies that support constructivism. Dr. Jim Milgram, Stanford math professor who has been and may still currently be the only educator invited to serve on NASA’s advisory board, noted that if constructivist math were a success, NASA would be looking for students that went through that pedagogy. The fact is, BYU’s math education professors’ failure is typical of constructivist programs.

There is only one conclusion. Following the USOE’s math recommendations will kill STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) initiatives. All you business leaders and technology oriented professionals supporting Common Core are going to be in for a rude awakening as this machine destroys love of math, destroys math skills, and destroys any edge Utah has for technology…unless…

Utah must drop Common Core and restore local control. The USOE is hell-bent on constructivism and unless there is a major personnel change at the USOE, it’s going to rest on the shoulders of parents to take their children’s education into their own hands (literally), and leave those who can’t get the support at home to drown in fuzzy math.

In 2006 or so, Brett Moulding, state curriculum director at the USOE invited me to his office to ask a simple question. “Oak, you’re a parent who is very involved in your children’s education. How can we replicate that to other parents?”

“Easy,” I replied. “Just implement Investigations math statewide and you’ll have all the parental involvement you can handle.”

True story. I just had no idea they were going to take my suggestion literally. Parents, you may seriously want to consider The Great Escape…Homeschooling.

Concerns

Teacher Writes Legislator after Retiring Due to Common Core

27 Comments

“There is much more involved here, than just a list of standards… if all the facts were known, it would be more than obvious that the legislature would make the move to abandon Common Core.”

– Recently retired Utah Teacher Margaret Wilkin

Margaret Wilkin has given permission to post her letter to the Utah legislature.  She retired last year from Canyons District.

 

WilkinMay 4, 2013

Senator Aaron Osmond

South Jordan, Utah 84095

 

Dear Aaron,

 

… On March 21, 2013, I was asked to return to the elementary school from which I retired last June, to give a presentation at their Literacy Night.  Some of the parents and students I taught in the past came down to the room where I was to say hello. In the course of the conversation, a mother of one of the smartest and most conscientious students I have ever had, said that her daughter was struggling in math.

I was surprised, but told her mother that teachers are required to teach to a rigid schedule and must move on to the next unit of study, even if the students don’t understand it.

Sticking to the schedule is more important than spending the time making sure everyone understands.

I knew as a teacher what I didn’t like about Common Core, as well as what had taken place leading up to it, but I didn’t have any concrete facts; therefore, I couldn’t give the parents any verifiable information other than my own story. I have spent the last five weeks researching and learning about Common Core. There are so many facets to Common Core, and I still don’t know everything, but I know much more than I did five weeks ago and enough to know that even without my own experience, I could not support it.

This morning I saw the e-mail from Diana Suddreth, the STEM Coordinator at the USOE, asking the Curriculum Director in each school district in Utah to solicit “success stories” from teachers using Common Core standards. She has further stated in her e-mail that she has seen marvelous and exciting things happening in classrooms since the implementation of Common Core. She stated that these “success stories” are needed to counteract the “vicious attacks” by those opposed to Common Core.

Aaron, are you aware that you and Senator Weiler are named by Diana Suddreth as the only two legislators to contact with the Common Core “success stories”? Am I to understand that you and Senator Weiler are therefore supportive of the Common Core Standards for the State of Utah?  If you are, I find this confusing since you have spoken so often of the important principle of local and State control of education. Common Core takes away local and State control, and puts the control into the hands of the Federal Government.

My response to Diana Suddreth is:

1. Utah has always had standards which teachers were required to follow.  2. It is not a matter of “voila” Common Core is here and at long last, wonderful things are happening in classrooms!  Exciting and wonderful things happen in classrooms because of the teacher’s own hard work and creativity along with the freedom to decide how to best teach the standards that make for success in the classroom, NOT because a list of Federally mandated Common Core standards.  3. Tax payers asking legitimate questions of elected officials and those employed at the USOE, and having the expectation of them to have studied the issues more carefully than the people asking the questions “is not too much to ask”.  Asking questions is not a “vicious attack”.  This is the future of our children’s education at stake as well as millions of taxpayer dollars.

Here is my unsolicited “success” story about Common Core:

Please note that I am speaking only to what is happening in the Canyons School District and at the elementary level. And I am speaking out because I am retired. Those teachers in the school system are afraid of losing their jobs if they speak out against Common Core and against the policies of the District.

The teachers have been given a rigid schedule which MUST be followed. In the morning, there is to be three hours of reading and language arts followed in the afternoon by two hours of math. P.E. and computer time has been shortened from 45 minutes to 30 minutes once a week.  That leaves 15 minutes of time each day for one of the following: music, art, science and social studies.

The teachers are monitored regularly by the principal, reading specialist and district personnel to make sure they are following the schedule.

Last year, when I was still teaching, the math portion of Common Core was put into place with the District’s purchase of the Pearson-Scott Foresman math series. As of last year, the “curriculum map” or math schedule did not match the organization of the book.  So every night, I had to hunt, using many sources, for what I was to teach the next day in order to follow the curriculum map. This is still the case as of this year.

We were to teach certain concepts during specified blocks of time and sometimes these concepts had no relationship to each other. After the specified blocks of time are completed, the students are tested in the computer lab, mainly so that the district can make sure the teachers are following the schedule. Even if the students do not understand the concepts being taught, the teacher must move on to the next block in order to follow the mandated schedule.

This removes the teacher’s ability to teach according to the needs of her/his particular class. One of the basic tenants of teaching is: monitor and then adjust to the needs of your students. The schedule as required by the District makes this very difficult to do.

We skim over the surface of many concepts. If you have seen any of the ridiculous examples of teaching two-digit multiplication and addition that people have posted on Facebook, yes, I have taught this because it is on the test.

I was in the classroom through the time leading up to the implementation of Common Core, as math was being “dumbed down” and during the time when we were told not to teach multiplication facts, two and three digit multiplication and long division to fourth graders. How could any respectable teacher not teach this?  This is not the case at the present time (times tables and long division and two and three digit multiplication are again being taught); however, the time allotted to teach these concepts is not long enough for many kids to grasp the idea.

My ability to be an effective math teacher was GREATLY diminished by having to follow the Common Core standards.

For this current school year, Canyons District purchased the Pearson reading series, “Reading Street” to match up with Common Core. (A perfectly good reading series which was not worn out was discarded. Why couldn’t this discarded series just have been supplemented with additional materials instead of wasting taxpayer money on new books?)

Reading and language arts, as in math, requires strict adherence to the schedule with regular monitoring by the principal, reading specialist and district personnel.

The students have 8 math and 6 reading computerized tests as well as three oral reading tests administered by the district. The upper grades have an additional test called MAZE. This does not count the end of the year testing in the computer lab. After the results are back the teacher is called into the principal’s office, along with the reading specialist, to account for the scores.

These tests are in addition to the regular weekly spelling, reading and math tests from the book publisher and teacher for the report card grades.

Speaking of report cards, we were told last year that the District was going to have workshops for parents so that they could understand the new report card which was going to be aligned with the Common Core standards. Wouldn’t the necessity of needing a workshop to teach parents how to interpret an elementary school report card, tell the District that this was a bad idea?

The lower performing students have just plain given up with this constant testing and will not even try any more. Teachers report that some of their students’ scores are actually getting worse. And again, teachers are called into the principal’s office to be grilled about what the teacher is going to do to bring up the scores, so that EVERY student is meeting the required benchmarks, when they are already doing everything they can to teach the material. Apparently, a child’s developmental readiness or ability is not taken in to consideration.

Is the child’s or teacher’s value only a test score?

The pressure on the teachers from the administration is INTENSE and many teachers say all they can do is teach to the test.

A second grade teacher recounted that she didn’t even dare have her class color a shamrock on St. Patrick’s Day because of the constant micromanaging by the administration and coloring a shamrock is not on the schedule.

Many teachers are saying they just can’t do this anymore. The joy and creativity of teaching in elementary school has been taken away by Common Core and the excessive testing. Kids and teachers both are burning out. Is this really what we want for our children?

Because of Common Core our freedom is being lost even down to the lowest level: the classroom.

There are MANY reasons to oppose Common Core. Here are just a few:

1. Data and assessment driven.  2. Adopted by the State School Board by accepting stimulus money and agreeing to the Common core standards before they had even been written.  3. Family rights to privacy, as spelled out in FERPA (Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act), have been essentially amended making computer testing a major tool in gathering information about students that should remain private. This is known as Data Mining.  4. Adopting these standards takes decision making out of State and local school boards and districts, but, even more importantly, out of the hands of teachers and parents. 5. The State Legislature was bypassed by not being included in the decision of whether or not to adopt Common Core.

There are so many layers to Common Core. There is much more involved here, than just a list of standards. My experience is just one part, but an important part. Frankly, it seems to me that if all the facts were known, it would be more than obvious that the legislature would make the move to abandon Common Core.

I am not against Common Core because I have been around for SO long that I don’t want change, but because I can see the harm it is doing to my profession and to students. The freedom of the parents, teachers, school districts and states to choose what is best for them has been taken away and will be controlled by the Federal government.

May I recommend to you a video presentation explaining Common Core that has been posted on You Tube. It is one of the best presentations I have seen. If you type in Google “You Tube Subversive Threat to Education”, you should be able to find it. It is a current talk given to a group in Tennessee.

Thank you again for all the hours of service you give to our community and State.

Sincerely,

Margaret Wilkin

Concerns

Homeschooler’s Information Being Stored

Leave a comment

From the Homeschool Legal Defense Association comes this important news. Here’s a clip and link to the full article.

hslda

National Databases: Collecting Student-Specific Data is unnecessary and Orwellian

http://www.hslda.org/docs/news/2013/201304090.asp

Overview

HSLDA has previously written articles expressing concerns with the Common Core Standards established in 2009 and the move toward national standards, curriculum, and tests.

A related concern is the rise of state databases of student-specific data, and the recent push toward aligning them between states. We believe that this will lead to a national database of student-specific data.

Home School Legal Defense Association has long opposed the creation of a national database of student-specific data. We believe that such national databases threaten the privacy of students, could be abused by government officials or business interests that may gain access to the data, threaten the safety of young people if their data is breached, and are not necessary in order to educate young people. Education should be about instilling academic knowledge, not some Orwellian attempt to track students from pre-school through college graduation. We believe that although these databases are being advanced by individual states, they are aligned between the states, and are being funded in part through the federal government’s Race to the Top program. They are becoming a de facto national database.

HSLDA is working to determine if these databases include the personal data of students who are educated in homeschool or private school settings. We have confirmed that New York City school district is including the data of homeschool students in the New York state database. This is extremely concerning to HSLDA and homeschool parents. We are currently investigating if other states are doing this. And we believe that as national databases grow, it will become increasingly difficult to protect the personal information of homeschool and private school students.

How Did a “National Database” Get off the Ground?

Continue reading…

Concerns

Retired Utah Appellate Judge Norman Jackson’s Letter to Legislators

4 Comments

To Utah Lawyer-Legislators:

Executive Summary of the attached paper entitled:

UTAH’S PARENTS DENIED DUE DILIGENCE AND DUE PROCESS: STATE SCHOOL BOARD APPROVES FEDERAL COMMON CORE STANDARDS AND ASSESSMENTS

By Norman H. Jackson, Judge, Utah Court of Appeals, Retired. – January 28, 2013

  1. The Utah State Board of Education adopted Federal Common Core Education Standards in 2010 without giving notice to Utah’s citizens or their Legislature.
  2. The Board signed on to Common Core to secure Federal Race-To-The-Top funding. Funding was denied. But, Utah remains locked into the Federal mandates.
  3. The Board breached its fiduciary duty to the public by failing to do Due Diligence before acting. The action constituted a denial of citizen’s rights to Due Process.
  4. Mitt Romney said Common Core is a mistake because the time may come when the Federal Government has an agenda it wants to promote. That time has arrived.
  5. Obama’s “Vision 2020 Roadmap” outlines the agenda:
    1. Control education
    2. Compel the States into resource distribution
    3. To “direct remedy” any failure to comply

 

UTAH’S PARENTS DENIED DUE DILIGENCE AND DUE PROCESS: STATE SCHOOL BOARD ADOPTS FEDERAL EDUCATION COMMON CORE STANDARDS AND ASSESSMENTS

By Norman H. Jackson, Judge, Utah Court of Appeals, Retired PAPER – January 28, 2013

Utah’s State Board of Education adopted the Federal Common Core State Standards Initiative before they, or anyone else knew, what the Standards would be. The Federal curriculum, assessments and other materials had not been written and some are still being drafted. We, and our legislators, had no notice of this action, and have no voice in the ongoing production of Common Core. This procedure has usurped basic education policy and content decisions from parents and our elected representatives. The National takeover rolls on despite the fact that most conservative legislators polled at the 2012 Utah State Convention voiced opposition to Common Core’s federal mandates. Further, these mandates are contrary to the Tenth Amendment of the U. S. Constitution which reserves control over education to the states and the people.

Here is the factual background and timeline for the creation and progress of Common Core.  Education “reformers” have worked for decades to impose national education standards.  The current phase began during the 2008 Presidential election when it was introduced as uniform “American Standards”.  As the Obama administration came into power, their vision for nationalizing education was labeled “Benchmarking For Success”.  To avoid the scrutiny of the democratic process, they used the Stimulus Bill to distribute an enormous pot of money to the U. S. Dept. of Education. And this taxpayer money is being used to shape state and local education without Congressional oversight.

In March 2009, the Department announced a two-part “Race-To-The-Top” competition for states to receive Common Core education funding. States could not get any money unless they signed contracts to adopt the Federal Standards. In March 2010, the “first official public draft” of the Standards (Math and English only) was released.  A final draft was released in June, and our State Board of Education immediately applied for funding and adopted Common Core.  Education Week reported Rutgers professor Joseph Rosenstein’s observation that: “Deciding so quickly … was irresponsible”.  Moreover, our School Board’s Application was not deemed meritorious. Funding was denied. But, Common Core mandates remain.

These facts demonstrate that we the people, and our children, were denied Due Diligence. Due Diligence is “such diligence as a reasonable person under the same circumstances would use.” It is “used most often in connection with the performance of a professional or fiduciary duty.”  It was not reasonable under these circumstances for the Board to act without giving notice to its constituents and providing an opportunity to respond. As fiduciaries, the Board had the duty to act in behalf of the public with care, candor and loyalty in fulfilling its obligations. I concur with Professor Rosenstein and conclude that the Board’s actions constitute a breach of their fiduciary duty to do “Due Diligence” in our behalf.

Further, these facts demonstrate that Utah citizens were denied Due Process. The boundaries of Due Process are not fixed. Fundamental to procedural due process is adequate notice prior to the government’s deprivation of one’s life, liberty, or property, and an opportunity to be heard and defend one’s rights. Substantive due process is a limit on the government’s power to affect the above rights. It is a safeguard against government action that is unfair, irrational or arbitrary in advancing a government interest.

The Federal mandates of Common Core dwarf No Child Left Behind mandates. They have the potential to be like Medicaid and ObamaCare with immense un-vetted and unfunded costs to taxpayers.  States and their citizens have the Constitutional right to local control. But, the Government requires that Common Core be fully implemented by 2014. Moreover, recent Federal revisions to the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) render student and family data – educational, health and otherwise – collectible by the Federal Government through the P-20W data systems they paid States to create. The State School Board’s denial of due process to citizens has made this possible.

I concur with Mitt Romney’s recent evaluation of Common Core: “I don’t subscribe to the idea of the Federal Government trying to push a Common Core on various states. It’s one thing to put out as a model and let people adopt it as they will, but to financially reward states based upon accepting the Federal Government’s idea of a curriculum, I think, is a mistake. And the reason I say that is that there may come a time when the Government has an agenda that it wants to promote”.

Obama’s “2020 Vision Roadmap” for America’s schools was co-written by his former education advisor, Linda Darling-Hammond. Darling-Hammond is now in charge of content specifications for half the country’s testing under Common Core. Yet, she attacks the use of standardized tests! In Nation Magazine, she compares America’s education system with South African apartheid and proposes that poverty requires the government to guarantee “housing, healthcare, and basic income security” to all. Then she praises nations that centrally control their schools.

At the end of her article, she touts Obama’s grand “2020 Vision Roadmap” (which she helped write) stating: “The Federal government should compel states to review inter-  and intra- school resource distribution using established indicators. States that fail to comply would be subject to withdrawal of Federal funds, and the Federal Government would have the right to the direct remedy to correct the problem.”

The citizens of Utah and the United States are in for some spectacular surprises, including federally controlled education and redistribution of State and school district resources during Obama’s second term. I urge Utah’s lawyer legislators to evaluate the State Board’s denial of due diligence and due process to Utah citizens, and to protect taxpayers and students from Obama’s Education policies to ­be fully implemented by 2014.

Concerns

Anonymous’ Helpful Miscalculation

7 Comments

I just had to post this comment in a more prominent location because it perfectly illustrates the situation when someone actually takes the time to do their homework on Common Core.

A commenter going by “Anonymous” just posted a comment linking to the Utah State Office of Education’s website where they’ve posted the Complete Resource Guide on the Utah Core Standards, encouraging someone to read the document. Someone did. Here is Tricia’s excellent response.

Thanks, anonymous, for linking to the Common Core Resource Guide. After reading through some of it, it only further solidified my stance against common core.

I found page 24 and 25 particularly horrifying. Talking about the English Language Standards it states, “The effect of implementing standards cannot be researched before they have been implemented. They must be implemented first before we can conduct research on their effectiveness.”

WHAT??? So all kids in the state get to be guinea pigs for the program? Couldn’t we try a small pilot program first? Those who support common core can sign up their children to be the test subjects (but I really wouldn’t recommend it). If the program proves to be successful, then I’d be willing to sign up my children (well, it will be my grandchildren by then, but whatever.)

And then there’s this:

“We, along with other major experts in the reading and literacy field, argue that all students need to be reading more and more informational texts than they currently do. Classroom-based observation research has revealed over the past decade that children read almost no informational texts at all.”

Who are these experts? And why do kids need to read more info text? Where is the proof that this will help them? They read plenty of info texts in math, science, and history. They don’t need to read them in English, as well.

It goes on, “more than 85% of adult reading time is spent reading informational texts. Only 15% of adult reading is literary texts.”

This is proof that MORE ADULTS should be reading MORE LITERARY TEXTS than that STUDENTS should read LESS. And if adults aren’t reading literature, they sure better read it in school or they will never be exposed to it.

But wait. There’s more:

“Our schools have given precious little attention to the reading and learning from informational text. That is precisely the point of the CCS Standards’ increased attention on informational text. Consider for a moment the demands an auto mechanic now has in using diagnostic computer technology to work on your car engine. The manual to be read by today’s auto mechanic is nearly four inches thick of informational text!”

Then let kids read informational text in auto mechanic school. Not English.

Reading info text will only bore them and make them hate reading, not give them a love for great literature.

Literature enriches our lives. It makes us better people. Helps us to think and examine and be aware.

Informational text teaches how to work on a car engine. Not an unimportant skill, but quite limited in its scope and power.

Which do you want for your kids?

Concerns

National Sexuality Education Standards

9 Comments

South Dakotan’s Against Common Core recently published this alarming information about National Sexuality Education Standards. I don’t expect Utah to adopt this program by choice anytime soon, but when you accept federal money, with federal strings, you sometimes get federal programs shoved down your throat whether you want them or not. By Utah aligning to Common Core and taking federal money for education, it is entirely feasible that this program written by Planned Parenthood could at some point become a national requirement for such states. You can bet there are those in Common Core circles who are banking on it, for the common good of the children of course.

Here’s a link to the original and the content of it below.

https://southdakotansagainstcommoncore.com/2013/05/01/national-sexuality-education-standards-core-content-and-skills-k-12/

********

OK, so I just discovered this little secret of Common Core.

And before you say it is not a part of Common Core, because it is “A Special Publication of the Journal of School Health,” please go to page 6 where it says, “The National Sexuality Education Standards were further informed by the work of the CDC’s Health Education Curriculum Analysis Tool(HECAT)3; existing state and international education standards that include sexual health content; the Guidelines for Comprehensive Sexuality Education: Kindergarten – 12th Grade; and the Common Core State Standards for English Language Arts and Mathematics, recently adopted by most states.”

 And before you say, “We won’t allow it in our schools. We will go to the school board.” Local control is gone. On page 6, “Specifically, the National Sexuality Education Standards were developed to address the inconsistent implementation of sexuality education nationwide and the limited time allocated to teaching the topic.” The whole idea behind Common Core is to create universal standards.

I wanted to know who would think they know what information was appropriate and at what age my child should learn this “appropriate” information. Here’s what I found out about a few of those on the Advisory Committee. I’ll let you research the rest.

Nora Gelperin, was the recipient of the national 2010 Mary Lee Tatum Award from the Association of Planned Parenthood Leaders in Education!
http://answer.rutgers.edu/page/nora_award

Deb Hauser has been with Advocates for Youth for almost 20 years, first as Director of the Support Center for School-based Health Care, then as Executive Vice President. In January 2012, Deb became the organization’s fourth President and Executive Director, representing Advocates with the media, funders and colleagues organizations and speaking nationally and internationally about young people’s rights to honest sexual health information, confidential sexual health services and equitable social and economic opportunities.
http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/about-us/advocates-staff

Robert McGarry, EdD
Director of Training and Curriculum Development
Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN)

Cynthia Lam, Sex, Etc. Teen Editorial Staff
Been writing for Sex, Etc since she was 14, she’s now 17.

Then I wanted to know what information these people thought was age-appropriate. Oh my goodness. Do you remember in the movie “Kindergarten Cop”, when the little boy walks up to Arnold Schwarzenegger and says, “Boys have a penis and girls have a vagina.”? I don’t know about you, but I was shocked and found it funny at the same time. I remember thinking, ‘boy, his parents have shared a lot of information with him.’ Parents will no longer have the right to decide what is developmentally and age appropriate for their individual child.

On page 12 it says
“By the end of 2nd grade, students should be able to: Use proper names for body parts, including male and female anatomy.” 

On page 14 it says:
“By the end of 5th grade, students should be able to: Describe male and female reproductive systems including body parts and their functions. Identify medically-accurate information about female and male reproductive anatomy.  Define sexual orientation as the romantic attraction of an individual to someone of the same gender or a different gender.”

On page 9 under “Guiding Values and Principles”

“Instruction by qualified sexuality education teachers is essential for student achievement.”
Wouldn’t that be the parents? Who decides who is “qualified”?

“Students need opportunities to engage in cooperative and active (I underlined those two words) learning strategies, and sufficient time must be allocated for students to practice (I underlined that one too) skills relating to sexuality education.”
What does that mean? Something like this?

And I just have to highlight this principle:
Students need multiple opportunities and a variety of assessment strategies to determine their achievement of the sexuality education standards and performance.

I know this is already in many of our schools. This is sex-education on steroids. You can download your own copy of the standards here.

I have only highlighted a very few of the items I, as a mom, find objectionable. You may not have any issues with the standards, principles and skills that children will be taught as a part of the Common Core Standards. I’m not asking you to agree with me. After all these are only minimum standards. Page 6 –  Outline what, based on research and extensive professional expertise, are the minimum, essential content and skills for sexuality education K–12 given student needs, limited teacher preparation and typically available time and resources. I just want you to be aware of the details.

If Common Core is so wonderful, why did they bring it in the back door without legislation? Education we are paying for, without representation.

Check back, as I am researching the companies that are creating curriculum to meet these standards.

 

 

Concerns

Centralized Education Reform by Any Other Name Would Smell

3 Comments

Centralized Education ReformGetting caught up in discussions about whether Common Core is “state led” or a federal program seems a fruitless debate of semantics.

What is the danger of a federally controlled education system that makes “state led” sound better? Those who oppose federal control typically oppose a concentration of power that would dictate one set of educational ideals (yes, even standards represent certain values) to the exclusion of others, establishing an intellectual tyranny of sorts.

Whether one sees Common Core as a federal program, or as the product of an extragovernmental cartel of state leaders (aka state-led) and special interests who had no constitutional commission to affect nationwide education policy in the way that they did, the outcome is the same:

Decisions were concentrated into the hands of a select few and the reforms of one ideology were championed (with the help of federal funds) while all other voices were shut out.

In other words, those who argue that this was not an outright federal mandate have a valid point. Common Core is the result of the second scenario, which is even worse than a direct federal mandate (as if No Child Left Behind wasn’t intrusion enough) from our duly elected representatives in Washington D.C.

This process sets an alarming precedent for circumventing our constitutional representative form of government and seems to establish a safe haven for the collusion of public funds and private interests without the traditional oversight established by law at either the federal or the state level.

I question what seems to be a generally accepted notion that Governors and Chief State School Officers have the legal authority to represent the state in making decisions jointly with other states. I see that as the role of Congress.

Common Core was not a “best practice” that was modeled by one state and copied by others. It was a joint initiative that had never been piloted anywhere… an unusual collaboration between the executive branches of State and Federal government and private interests that was brokered by the National Governors Association (NGA) and Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). It was a process that was not openly accountable to “we the people,” that was not subject to open meetings, open records, lobbying restrictions etc.

There is a long history of disagreement over the best way to teach math, or what books and literature are of the most worth. In a free society, this competition of ideas has traditionally been considered a valuable condition that would encourage innovation, preserve liberty, and provide options. When the results of competing ideas and methodologies can be compared, people can make informed decisions and choose for themselves what works best.

Those who comfort themselves with the remaining sliver of local control over curriculum within the confines of the Common Core standards and tests seem strangely willing to trade some of the last vestiges of local control (unlikely to ever be returned once surrendered) to support an untried philosophy of education that is dismissive of the experience and creativity of our best teachers, and of the primary stewardship of parents over their children.

Meanwhile textbooks, summative assessments, prepackaged curriculum and formative assessments grow ever more homogenous as they align to “common” standards, and the benefits of school choice are practically erased.

If this were just about standards that would be one kind of disagreement… but the furor over Common Core is about a fundamental shift in control over education.

This is about how decisions for education, and perhaps even other “state led” initiatives, are governed going forward.

This is about whether those closest to the children and their needs will be marginalized in favor of overgeneralized policy by bureaucrats and educrats.

This is not just about what our kids will learn, but about who gets to decide.

Concerns

AIR Servers Crash Preventing MN from Testing Students

Leave a comment

Uh-oh, don’t look now Utah, but our $39 million contract with AIR (http://www.deseretnews.com/article/765628026/Utah-Common-Core-testing-fraught-with-flaws.html) to do computer adaptive testing on our students just hit a snag. In spite of the fact the USOE told the legislature that AIR was the ONLY VENDOR FULLY PREPARED to handle the computer adaptive testing for Utah schools, it appears that assessment was short-lived and shortsighted.

From the Pioneer Press Twin Cities news comes this article, “Computer crash derails math assessment exams for Minnesota students.”

http://www.twincities.com/ci_23037427/minnesota-students-math-test-halted-after-computer-problems

Thousands of students across Minnesota could not take the online state math assessment they spent much of the school year preparing for because of a technology failure Tuesday, April 16.

A computer problem at testing contractor American Institutes of Research, or AIR, prevented students from beginning or completing the Minnesota Comprehensive Assessments online, said Charlene Briner, chief of staff for the Minnesota Department of Education.

“It is unfortunate, and it is unacceptable to us,” said Briner, who said the problem was with AIR, the state’s vendor, and not “school infrastructure.”

…

Jon Cohen, director of assessment for AIR, said servers that process tests experienced two “slowdowns” Tuesday morning as 15,000 students tried to access the system.

…

Evelyn Belton-Kocher, director of testing, research and assessment for St. Paul, said the difficulties are an example of online testing’s challenges.

“If you don’t have a highly-reliable system, you put a lot more stress on your most vulnerable kids,” Belton-Kocher said. “It’s not a level playing field.”

Robert Schaeffer, spokesman for the National Center for Fair and Open Testing, said the problems Minnesota students and teachers experienced are common when states try to administer standardized test online on a large scale. States have seen repeated problems with programming, infrastructure and the capacity of systems used to administer the tests.

“The assumption is the technology is infallible,” Shaeffer said, adding that contractors make performance promises they can’t keep. “You shouldn’t contract based on promises. You should contract, especially with taxpayer money, based on performance.”

Lets see…15,000 students access the assessments and crash the servers. I think I have to agree with Shaeffer. Utah shouldn’t contract based on promises but based on performance.

If you don’t know much about AIR, they are the official partner of the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium which legislators helped pressure the state school board and USOE to drop all affiliations with. If you don’t know much about AIR, please check out these two articles.

This article by Alpine School District board member Brian Halladay, briefly summarizes hours of research on AIR and SAGE and how they are involved in testing behavior, not education.

This article by Tiffany Mouritsen exposes the extreme agenda that AIR supports and has written extensively about on their website including social justice and LGBT. Why can’t Utah find an assessment partner to support that doesn’t spend money on tearing down the moral fabric of society that we value?

Concerns

Uintah USOE AIR/SAGE Meeting Report

12 Comments

We received this report yesterday from someone who attended the Uintah school district meeting last week where USOE representatives spoke about AIR/SAGE testing. This parent requested anonymity. If you are new to this and don’t know what AIR/SAGE is, please read this report on AIR/SAGE by Alpine School District board member Brian Halladay.

******

I attended the meeting held by Uintah School District last week.

The meeting appeared to be a training on the new assessments for Common Core that will cost $30 million. The guy turned his back on the room and spoke quietly when he said ‘$30 mil’, so I’m not sure I heard him correctly. He was more than happy to face the room and speak loudly about how great these assessments will be and how very much we need them–in his opinion. (Note-his job is dependent on him holding to that opinion.)

A little more than halfway through the meeting, he finally allowed questions. He would NOT allow questions before that. When question time came, it was very clear that the majority of the people in the room were unhappy parents, not educators there for his training. With a great deal of pressure from parents, it was decided that some common core questions would be answered by Dixie Allen of the state school board.

All individuals interested in common core questions being answered were invited to get up and move to a smaller room to talk with Dixie. By the time everyone had gathered in the smaller room, common core was on a screen at the front of the room and Dixie was prepared to give a presentation. Parents tried to ask questions and Dixie tried to give a presentation.

When it became clear that Dixie’s intent was to deliver a Common Core ‘sale’, one parent specifically requested that questions be answered first and the presentation be given second because people were obviously wanting their questions answered now. Dixie said no, but eventually had to give in because the questions wouldn’t quit coming. We didn’t have to watch or listen to a big presentation from Dixie, but we did have to listen to her state several times that common core standards are higher (to which one parent consistently replied ‘no, they’re not’ every time). She also told the parent in the room who knew the most about Common Core that she (Dixie) didn’t want that mom asking anymore questions because the mom gave comments, informing other parents of the details so Dixie could not shut them down completely. Obviously, Dixie is frightened of the truth getting out.

Dixie also denied being the homeschool teacher for 2 of her grandchildren in her home. (I think the count was 2.) She later backtracked on that one and admitted that she teaches one grandchild who is in 9th grade right now and homeschooled because of bullying. (A difficult to fully believe claim because the junior high principal here is quite strict and everyone else says this principal put an end to bullying in that school when she was first put in as principal, long enough ago that bullying in that school would have ended by the time Dixie’s grandchild would have entered the jr. high.)

Dixie 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.”

None of the parents in the room said anything, but note that the argument that we need to do common core so we can buy materials to match our core falls when you consider that we’re not buying the materials!

In short, no one in the meeting was convinced that common core was a good idea. Parents talked afterwards, exchanging their contact info and more information on common core. One parent had watched a program on the miserable failure of common core in Michigan and was there with her notes in hand, asking questions and providing details of how bad things are in Michigan. Dixie tried very hard, but unsuccessfully, to refute the points this good mom made throughout the meeting. Another mom mentioned that history has proven how very dangerous a national curriculum can be, but many people in the room are unaware of that and just thought she’s a little paranoid.

I left the meeting thinking that Dixie is either completely ignorant of the facts surrounding common core or she is an outright liar. I spoke with some people who know her personally the next day and they told me that she just truly believes in big government, so she wouldn’t even be able to see the facts. It was interesting to watch her at the meeting. Dixie is an elected representative of the people, but you couldn’t tell. Elected representatives should listen to the people, treat them respectfully, and do as the people want. Dixie did none of that. As an elected representative of the people, she ARGUED with them and spoke condescendingly when they didn’t understand education lingo. It was very sad.

Dixie did state that Utah might not adopt the science part of common core because of pressure from the ‘right wing’ in the state. She also said that Utah might try to vary from common core by more than the 15% allowed, but there will be no attempt to get out of common core.

Sadly, the powers that be cannot admit they’ve made a mistake and are completely disrespectful to the people who gave them power and pay the taxes that support them and their decisions.

*****

That ends the report but I wanted to note that I personally had 2 state school board members tell me last year that Utah would never adopt the Common Core science or social studies standards. Teacher and former state representative David Cox spoke with State Superintendent Martel Menlove a month ago and Dr. Menlove told him that Utah would not adopt the Common Core social studies standards. Yet just a week ago we learned that Utah is participating in the CREATION of those social studies standards. You can express your displeasure with the state school board by emailing them at Board@schools.utah.gov. It’s time for partisan school board elections where candidates aren’t carefully selected by a committee and then filtered by the governor.

Concerns

Dr. David Wright vs. USOE …(8-0 for Dr. Wright)

2 Comments

With permission, I am posting this letter that Dr. David Wright, math professor at BYU, and one of only a couple mathematicians that helped create the A- rated 2007 Utah math standards, wrote to legislators concerning the problems of Common Core implementation from the USOE. We have previously published several posts about significant problems with the USOE math texts.  You can read here about Dr. Jim Milgram’s statement on the low quality of Common Core math compared to high achieving states, and former Department of Education math expert Ze’ev Wurman commenting how Utah’s implementation plan outlined in our No Child Left Behind waiver application would actually hurt math in Utah. It matches up with exactly what Dr. Wright is saying in this letter. This letter is stunning because it also reveals a problem that may prove to be the dismissal of several USOE employees.

**********

Dear Senators Osmond and Weiler,

I see that Diana Suddreth sent a “Your Action is Needed” email to defend the Utah Math Common Core.  She is encouraging letters of support for the Utah Common Core and is concerned that the Common Core is under a “vicious attack.”  She is inviting her supporters to send letters to both of you.

As a mathematics professor and someone who is very aware of the details of the Common Core, I would like to comment on what I feel is the awful way the Common Core Math Standards have been implemented by the USOE.

1.  The Core was implemented before there were textbooks.  In fact, some of those who favor the Utah Core do not even feel that textbooks are important.  When I hear Suddreth say,  “And teachers are empowered by creating units of study for students that go beyond anything their textbooks ever provided”  I know something is seriously wrong.

2.  The Core was implemented before there were assessments in place.

3.  The standards do not dictate any particular teaching method, but rather set goals for student understanding.  However, the USOE has used the implementation of the new Core to push a particular teaching method; i.e., the “Investigations” type teaching that was so controversial in Alpine School District.

4.  Evidence of the type of teaching promoted by USOE comes from the textbook used for the secondary academy, 5 Practices for Orchestrating Productive Mathematics Discussions (Margaret S. Smith and Mary Kay Stein) as one of the primary resources.  The book is about the kind of group learning envisioned by Investigations and Connected Math (the sequel to Investigations).

5.  The Mathematics Vision Project was created in partnership with the USOE.  It has developed  integrated secondary math material for the Utah Core. They openly admit that their “teaching cycle” is similar to the model of the Connected Mathematics Project.  Here is a statement about their teaching method:

As students’ ideas emerge, take form, and are shared, the teacher orchestrates the student discussions and explorations towards a focused mathematical goal. As conjectures are made and explored, they evolve into mathematical concepts that the community of learners begins to embrace as effective strategies for analyzing and solving problems. These strategies eventually solidify into a body of practices that belong to the students because they were developed by the students as an outcome of their own creative and logical thinking. This is how students learn mathematics. They learn by doing mathematics. They learn by needing mathematics. They learn by verbalizing the way they see the mathematical ideas connect and by listening to how their peers perceived the problem. Students then own the mathematics because it is a collective body of knowledge that they have developed over time through guided exploration. This process describes the Learning Cycle and it informs how teaching should be conducted within the classroom.

6.  The USOE does hold students back.  This is not the intent of the Common Core, but it is Utah’s implementation.  I regularly judge the state Sterling Scholar competition.  Almost all of the bright kids take AP calculus as a junior or even earlier because they were taking Algebra 1 by seventh grade.  Now it will be difficult to get that far ahead.  The National Math Panel made it clear that there was no problem with skipping prepared kids ahead.  The Common Core has a way for getting eighth graders into Algebra 1 which the USOE has ignored.

7.  The USOE chose the “uncommon” core when they picked secondary integrated math.  Hardly anyone else is doing this program.  So there are no integrated textbooks except the one that the USOE is developing.  I have been told that this is the “Asian” model, but I am very familiar with the textbooks in Hong Kong and Singapore.  The Mathematics Vision Project Material does not look like Asian material, it looks like Investigations/Connected Math.

8.  There is substantial information that Diana Suddreth, Syd Dickson, Brenda Hales, and Michael Rigby of the USOE participated in unethical behavior in the awarding of the Math Materials Improvement Grant.  The USOE chose reviewers (including Suddreth and Dickson) who were conflicted.  Suddreth helped the University of Utah choose a principal investigator who was her own co-principal investigator on a $125 K  grant .  According to the USOE internal email messages, the required sample lesson of the winning proposal contained “plagiarized material.” The sample lesson had “no text” instead it contained 79 pages of “sample materials” (some of which was plagiarized) for a teacher study guide including problems for discussion and homework.  The adaptive performance assessment program for the winning proposal was non-existent.  The principal investigators redefined “adaptive assessment” to be something that was never intended.

Regards,

David G. Wright

I am a Professor of Math at BYU, but this letter is written as an educator, parent, and concerned citizen and does not represent an official opinion from BYU.

Brigham Young University has a policy of academic freedom that supports the pursuit and dissemination of knowledge and ideas. The university does not endorse assertions made by individual faculty.

**********

This comment from Michele Alder was recently made and ties right into this: “My kids are in a charter school that teaches an advanced curriculum, and the school is being pressured to change their methods and curriculum which would be a big step back.  My neighbors from France have their kids go to the same school as my kids and they found this advanced curriculum a year behind where they were in France.  This means that the (Utah Core) Public School Math is now two or more years behind Europe, a fact that the presenters to this SAGE/AIR meeting contended saying, ‘these new standards will help us keep catch up with Europe.'”