What’s the powerful reason that you’ve taken a stand against Common Core?  Why do you want the restoration of high quality, time-tested education standards and local control in Utah?  Do you have a great story?  We want to hear it!

Submit your essay to Utahns Against Common Core at consecutiveintegers@yahoo.com by the deadline:  midnight on February 15th.  Three essays will be selected to be read at the State Capitol Common Core Event on February 18th  from 6:30 to 8:00.  Winners will be notified on February 17th and winners will be announced at the public meeting.  Winning and non-winning essays will be posted at Utahns Against Common Core.

Topic:  Why I oppose the Common Core Initiative

Length:  Essay must be readable in less than three minutes.

Deadline: 12:00 midnight on February 15th, 2014

Prize:  You get to share your story/essay at the State Capitol Common Core Event

Dr. Christopher Tienken on Common Core assessments: “I think it borders on institutional abuse.”

It’s starting to look like New York, that bastion of right-wing extremists, err…, may be the first state to throw off Common Core. Having fully embraced it in all it’s glory, they’ve now seen first hand the damage it can cause to children. Here’s some clips.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/education/item/17577-new-york-revolts-against-common-core

Now, after listening to an outraged public in a series of 11 forums held across New York, state lawmakers are getting ready to file a bill that would slam the brakes on the scheme. In a phone interview with The New American, New York State Assemblyman Al Graf, a member of the Assembly Education Committee, explained that the coalition of legislators had no choice but to take action to stop the “disaster” that Common Core has foisted on the state. “This is state-sponsored child abuse,” he said.

Dr. Gary Thompson would agree.

Among other problems with the controversial standards, Graf cited wildly inappropriate material, massive costs, the devastating impact on teachers and students, and more. “If you wanted to destroy public education, this is what you would do,” he said. “Teaching is a skill. Teaching is an art form. What they are doing here is turning teachers into hall monitors.”

When will Utah teachers and schools speak out? It took Alpine School District years of complaints from parents before they started teaching the times tables and long division to children again. There’s a reason why there are more charter schools in ASD per capita than any other district… Common Core will create a push for alternate education, but this time it’ll be home school and private school to escape the nonsense.

The material is often highly inappropriate, the lawmaker continued. “Explain to me why a first grader has to point out ancient Mesopotamia on a globe or explain their contributions to modern civilization — they’re six,” Graf said, citing a broad range of examples illustrating that the controversial standards appear to have been poorly thought out — at the very least. “But you know there are a lot of people making money on all this.”

Bingo!

Graf, who represents a Long Island district, also told The New American that Common Core fails to take into account children with disabilities. One special-education teacher who spoke out during the forums held across New York, for example, told lawmakers about the disasters she has experienced under the new education scheme. The kids were being tested on material they never learned and, sitting still for 90 minutes to take the new tests, were deeply confused. One distraught child was even caught stabbing himself with a pencil under the desk during the test.

“She was breaking into tears testifying about this,” Graf said about the special-education teacher who shared the story. “I have parents pouring their hearts out telling me how their kids are coming home and don’t want to go to school anymore. I have kids that loved math and now hate math.” Some teachers who testified, knowing that they could be putting their careers in jeopardy, told lawmakers that they just “couldn’t sit there and let them do this to these children.”

Dr. Gary Thompson and Ed Flint should have no problem supporting themselves in the future. Deja Vu. I think I just wrote that.

Dr. Gary Thompson penned this article regarding the lawsuit just filed for the family whose child has been psychologically damaged as a result of Common Core and bad district policy. Ed Flint is the attorney representing Dr. and Mrs. T.  Dr. Thompson published this post publicly on Facebook. Ed Flint replied to it and I have included his comment below as well so that everyone can understand the gravity of this situation.

Common Core Is The “Hotel California” For “Quirky” Kids:

                              “You Can Check In Anytime You Like…But You Can Never Leave.”

  Why Paternalist Attitudes Towards Parents Are Destroying Our Children In Public Schools

Forward:

Don Henley’s and Glenn Frey’s eerie musical salutation to the over indulgences associated with the California lifestyle of the 1980’s,  sheds some light on two defective foundational issues associated with trendy educational reforms such as Common Core: 1).  A sense of omnipotence, 2). A lack of humility.

Yesterday, Attorney Edward D. Flint and I were asked, by Rod Arquette on his radio show, to discuss the recent “lawsuit” filed against Alpine School District for and behalf of our clients Dr. & Mrs. “T” and their son “T.T.”  Attorney Flint brilliantly outlined the legal issues associated with the suit, the blatant and serious violations of both civil and disability laws, and the level of arrogance associated with the District when they were made aware of their errors.  He also discussed the dangerous effects of applying a “one size fits all” decision matrix to children who do not fit into the neat categories designed by politicians, and special interest “suits”, who have never stepped foot into either a classroom, or an education psychology clinic.

Near the end of the show, the host asked me how the current “lawsuit” was related to “Common Core”, and seconds before I launched into my well prepared sound bite, my phone died.  This was no conspiracy; it was just pure idiocy on my part.  Cellphones do not operate well without sufficient power.   Barring a lightening strike that fries my computer hard drive, I will now answer Rod’s question.

Alpine District vs. Dr. & Mrs. T clearly and definitively exemplifies everything wrong with several philosophical and operational aspects that under pin the Common Core, none of which have anything to do with the curriculum or standards of the Core.

Over the past year, I have had the wonderful opportunity to listen to, and rub elbows with, some of the sharpest minds in the world in the areas of Mathematics, English and Social Studies curriculum development and implementation.   As a parent and a voter, I have developed my own lay, non-expert, opinions regarding these issues.  Lay opinions, however, are like elbows… everybody has one.  I will not discuss issues related to curriculum as they pertain to Common Core, and the issue is not a cause of action in the Alpine v. T case.

The causes of action in this Due Process Petition, set to be heard in an Administrative Law Hearing, should be of great concern to every parent, taxpayer, local & state school board member, elected members of the Utah Legislature,and local public school administers and Superintendents.   In layman’s terms, Dr. & Mrs. T, via their counsel, asserts the following:

1.  Their parental concerns regarding their son’s educational placement were ignored and/or dismissed.

2.  Their parental concerns regarding their son’s mental health were ignored.

3.  Their concerns were met with extreme and cruel passive aggressive actions.

4.  Alpine District retaliated against them for “daring” to bring in outside “experts” to assist them.

5.  Despite well documented concerns regarding the validity and ethics of the school’s IEP evaluation, the District IEP Team continued to utilize invalid, or unethical,testing protocols as part of their determination to deny special education considerations.

6.  Despite multiple pleas from parents and licensed clinical child therapists, the school continued to utilize punitive measures on a gifted 11 year old. This resulted in the demise of a child’s mental health, until his therapist suggested they remove the child from the school.

In the past, when I have written, lectured or testified to the “harm” that Common Core can, and has, caused a multitude of children.  The “one size fits all” and “top down (“we know better than you”) mentality that permeates in the halls of state capitals and education leadership epitomizes the foundational attitudes inherent in “Common Core”.  The resultant harm spelled out below does not mention or refer to politics or religion in any fashion, yet the propaganda emanating from State Education leaders always seems to steer back to the tried and true comments of “they are misled”, or they are“extremists”.

The basis of this lawsuit is neither extreme nor misled.

It is based on sound legal and science based foundations.   Lawmakers and leaders can continue their delusional, “all is well in Zion” propaganda as such applies in context to their response to critics.  However, such empty words do not stand up well under the light and scrutiny of the law, as well as the general public.  Until leaders are willing to address the issues discussed below, children will continue to be harmed in our education system, and Mr. Flint will continue to file a plethora of lawsuits against Utah public school districts statewide.

Psychological Testing & Data Gathering:

Whether “pro” or “con”, most people reading this can agree that psychological testing is happening in the school systems, and that data gathering and storage is occurring at unprecedented levels at both the national, and local (Utah) levels.  In the private sector, our child psychologists make a living with the gathering and interpretation of data from multiple sources.  The assumption is that the more data there is to analyze and interpret, the more informed the decision will be when it comes to choosing what practices should be implemented into public school systems, or as part of a clinical treatment plan or education evaluation.

From the distant perches of Utah’s Capitol Hill (e.g., “the forest”) in the Education Committee chambers, this theory makes perfect and logical sense.  However, the direct causal effects this practice has on the ground level (e.g., “the trees”) is anything but pretty.   The reason why Alpine District may sustain some serious financial and/or public relations losses can be directly attributed to polices developed in the “forest” (e.g., politicians) that have disastrous effects on a significant amount of “trees” (e.g., children) in our public school systems.  The public school machine, now being heavily influenced by dollars from the Federal Government,  literally have lost sight of the diverse “trees” from the distant views of the “forest”.

Public school systems are indeed in a rush to gather and interpret data via psychological  “checklists”, Sage/Common Core achievement tests, registration materials, and (in the case of Alpine v Dr. T) multiple psychological instruments.   Data, in and of itself, is neither “evil” nor“good”.  Who should see and have access to this data is a topic/debate for another time, and certainly not a legal issue brought up in this particular Petition.

It is the inaccurate, and unethical interpretations of this data that is fueling the chaos, damage and despair at the ground levels of public schools in the nation, and in Alpine District.  This current federal administration’s almost “orgy like thirst” for the gathering of data (fueled by millions of dollars invested by private corporations) has resulted in little to no focus on how this data is being utilized on the ground level.  “Ground level” meaning your kids. 

So while the “Left” and the “Right” argue about who should see data, where such data should be stored, and what types of data should be gathered in public school settings, local clinical community scientists in our clinic have been focusing entirely on HOW this data has been used and interpreted on individual cases (e.g, “the trees”).

The “Alpine Case” is the perfect example of a worst-case scenario associated with the misuse and misinterpretation of a boat-load of data.   If data is ethically and responsibly utilized by public school systems, children’s lives (as well as their educational placements) can be altered or adjusted in a positive manner.  If data is not used ethically or responsibly by public school systems, children’s lives can and will be affected negatively, and often dangerously, as the Alpine case details.  If decision makers have invalid interpretation results, children will be subjected to inappropriate programs and placements for potentially the remainder of the K-12 experience.  Public school systems are simply ill equipped and poorly educated on how to find, test, and teach African American, Latino, Autistic, Gifted, Depressed, Anxious and Learning Disabled children, thus condemning the vast majority of them to academic experiences laced with anxiety, frustration, extreme dropout rates, drug addiction, and in some cases, suicide.

“You can check out anytime you like, but you can never leave” indeed.

Alpine School District went to great lengths to keep young Mr. T from checking out of his current educational placement, which resulted in great harm to this child and his family.  This is factually detailed in the “Petition”, and not really a matter of reasonable argument.   This is not politics.  This is not “Red” v. “Blue”.  This is a young child who got hurt.  As Attorney Flint stated on the radio program, “I am simply not going to allow this to happen anymore under my watch.” Mr. Flint’s motivation is neither fame nor money.   Indeed, his own child, with diagnosed Asperger’s disorder, checked into the “Hotel California” of the Utah education system in the Canyon’s School District, and recently dropped out of school in utter and complete frustration.  I was his child’s education advocate.  It simply was too late to repair the emotional and psychological damage caused to this young man.

How To Keep Children From Checking Into The “Hotel California” of Education:

Our case against Alpine School District is based on sound science, ethics in psychometric measurement, and the law as outlined by the2004 IDEA.   Over the past two years, our clinic’s doctors, lawyers, and advocates have developed several principles of practice based on science and law that guide our decision making process when evaluating potential cases to bring to litigation.

(Given the extreme political, gender, socio-economic, racial, and religious difference that exist in our clinic, a failure to unite via science would result in us being as effective as the U.S.Congress) 

Not only are these practical guides, but it occurred to me prior to our appearance on Rod’s radio program, that these all can be applied towards practices and values currently in place and encouraged in the  Common Core era that have caused harm in my community.  We name the values/practices below:

1.    Ethical Data Gathering & Interpretation (EDGI) is Both a Science and an Art.

As a child, I would often ask my father, when he walked into the door after a long day, how his “work” went.   As a practicing medical doctor, he feigned indignation by replying, “I don’t work boy, I practice.”  I learned from my father that the practice of medicine is messy, and that a one size fits all approach to such results in carnage.  The practice of medicine comes from the ethical use of the proper diagnostic tools, years of supervised and licensed experience, common sense, and most of all, humility.   The human body, mind and spirit, is immensely complex in scope and nature.  Via action and example, my father taught me that the first and most important component to great clinical care is not being delusional with the thought that we have all the answers when it comes to working with complex humans.

When using data to make informed decisions in education or psychology, it is imperative to “paint” the most possible detailed and accurate picture of a child using as much (relevant) information, skill and expertise that a professional can summon.

What we saw in the Alpine case was a District team that painted a picture of an immensely complex child that came out looking like a connect-the-dot water color painting.   

Data gathering, in and of itself, does not insure a comprehensive, accurate or relevant “paintings” of a child.  Our education evaluations, from start to finish, involve upwards of 40 hours of time, and a addition 20 hours of analysis by several employees, by the time we get in front of an IEP team to offer our interpretation of  the child.  We offered Alpine a “Picasso” of young Mr. T.. They decided they were not interested in painting a “Picasso”, but were just fine with the “water color” thank you.

This can cause great harm to a family.

Principle One:  Paint the Picasso.

2. EDGI (Ethical Data Gathering & Interpretation) Is Not an Absolute Or Perfect Endeavor

When I was learning the art form of gathering and interpreting psychological, emotional, cognitive and achievement data for the purposes of writing an educational evaluation, my clinical instructor, Dr. Ann Marie Martinez, went through and corrected my “completed” report with a red pen like a woman obsessed.   One of the hardest things I had to adjust to as a budding Doctor in training was qualifying my results.  Nothing was ever 100%.  Placing in qualifiers such as “indicate”,“may be”, or “strongly suggest” was Dr. Martinez’s way of teaching me that despite how smart we may think we are, we will never be able to use numbers and data to definitively explain the hearts, cognitions and potentials of human children.

Dr. Martinez spent an entire year trying to humble me.

I was already very skilled at administering psychological/academic tests, and showed signs of promise with the ability to integrate a plethora of data in forming clinical and/or education theories.  Yet I continued to come across in my writings and evaluations like I had the child “all figured out”.  That was until she called me into her office and suspended me from my training for two weeks.

I got humbled real fast.

Principle Two:  You will never know the depths of a child’s heart, might, mind and strength.  There is something bigger than you in this vast universe…and that something is the child sitting in front of you.  “The essence of a child can never be fully measured by a mere mortal.”

3. EDGI (Ethical Data Gathering & Interpretation) Must Deeply Involve The Resident Experts Of The Subject Matter Involved.

Humans have yet to devise a test or assessment that does anything other than measure, with a certain degree of statistical certainty, anything more than the tip of the iceberg when it comes to a child’s cognitive, achievement and emotional capacities.   Failing to tap into the treasure trove of information from available parents, caretakers and guardians of a child is one of the biggest, and most serious mistakes a budding doctor in clinical psychology can ever make.   The movement towards greater emphasis on teacher judgment and data, in lieu of tapping into and respecting a parent’s viewpoint on a child, is not only unethical practice, it is a dangerous and highly arrogant one.  The amount of emphasis that politicians and educators in administration positions place on high stakes achievement testing, when it comes to decision making in the areas of child placement, “grading” Utah schools and teacher evaluations, are simply not supported by science and common sense at this time.  In all serious, Utah school teachers, are you going to place any percentage of your job performance on the line based upon the results of an experimental test that has never been validated, peer reviewed, or utilized on K-12 children?

Principle Three: Parentsare, and must always be, the resident experts of their children.

4. EDGI (Ethical Data Gathering & Interpretation) Must Occur Under A Strict Set of Ethical Guidelines & Procedures

If one was tasked with putting together a nuclear bomb, one must assume that there is a pretty strict and exacting procedural book to follow.   I’m supposing (hoping) that such guidelines are strictly followed.  Similarly, an airline pilot must go through exacting pre-flight and landing checklist procedures prior to takeoff and landing a commercial jet.   There are no variations from these procedures. No matter how many years of experience a pilot has, he performs the exact same checklist over and over.

A functioning child is (should be) worth more to use than a nuclear bomb or a747 Jumbo Jet, yet we have found that those entrusted to evaluate our kids in public schools often do not use “checklists”.  Cognitive, achievement and emotional testing instruments come with a “manual” that must be followed exactly in order to ensure ethical and valid testing results.   In the current Alpine case, the lack of adherence to proper procedures was appalling at best, which resulted in a “connect the dot, water color portrait” of a very complex, gifted child.

Principle Four: Do it right, or don’t do at all.   “One-Size-Fits-All” only applies when it comes to following ethical administration procedures for accurate, valid, norm-referenced, peer reviewed, openly pilot tested assessments. The upcoming Common Core/SAGE Test does not meet any of these criterions.

Summary Conclusions:

Our Ed/Psych/Law clinic operates under 10 guiding principles of practice.  I shared for of them with you, and they are as follows:

1.    “Paint the Picasso”. (Comprehensive & Inclusive Evaluations)

2.    “Parents are, and must always be, the resident experts of their children.”

3.    “The essence of a child can never be fully measured by a mere mortal.” (Humility)

4.    “Do it right, or don’t do it at all.”

Since the implementation of Common Core into our Utah school system, it is has been my observation and practice that schools are under tremendous financial, political and administrative pressure to implement practices that skirt ethical guidelines associated with the administration and interpretation of assessment/testing results.  Whether this is happening via the usage of  psychological “checklists” by school counselors, cognitive and achievement testing performed by school psychologists, or in the near future, placing the academic outcomes of our children on the new, experimental Common Core/Sage Tests, it has become clear that children are being harmed on the ground levels in public school settings.

No amount of propaganda can wipe away the tears of a mother whose child has been victimized by this. 

No amount of speeches from lawmakers or school board members can correct the wrongs associated with an education system that is based on the values of “them” as experts, as opposed the parents of children. 

No amount of money given to the public school system by lawmakers or private billionaires can bring back the self esteem lost by children and teens who have been relegated to models of learning and testing that simply do not correspond to their unique and diverse cognitive, achievement and emotional make up.

Whether you or Alpine District agree or disagree with the above, it simply does not matter.  In our clinic, only two opinions are relevant:

Science and the law.

It’s pretty simple. If a District insists on not comporting to both, we will zealously advocate for justice for our young clients.  Robin Hood took from the rich and gave to the poor. The form of “socialism” that Attorney Ed Flint will use will be to take from the District’s, and give back to the parents hope and autonomy…as well as alot of your tax dollars.

Dr. Gary Thompson

———————————

Edward Flint: Here’s my little input: Records show that Utah was dead last (with the exception of American Samoa) in bringing complaints and due process actions against schools and districts for violations of the law. In the past 10 years, only two cases went to a hearing, neither were represented by counsel, both lost. The handful of other cases were all “resolved” without a hearing, including two cases that I worked on in the past year.

This case is different. I doubt that Alpine District will want to settle, because we are not conceding on any issues, and it will cost them a lot of money. They would rather take their chances at a hearing, which they will lose big time, and then pay me an additional $30,000 in legal fees when I win the hearing. They may be bold enough to appeal, thereby finally establishing how out of line with the law their actions are, and pay me another $30,000 in attorney fees for the appeal, AND establish a precedent that I will apply to every school district in Utah.

Sadly, the prevailing attitude in Utah is “go along, get along, obey your leaders, never question authority, don’t rock the boat.” This case will change all of that. I am on fire. They will pay. You will pay, because your tax dollars are going to pay for me, for the therapy, for the outside tutoring, and it’s going to cost the taxpayers quadruple on this one case, because the school districts think they can continue to get away with it. Not on my watch.

So if it ticks you off that your tax dollars have to pay my legal bills and this child’s outside therapy and tutoring, blame the system, not the messenger. If you don’t want me to get rich off of your tax dollars, then complain to the school boards, your legislators and start fighting back against the system. Make them do what they are supposed to do, and obey the law.

Updated: This lawsuit has been dismissed.

http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2014/01/27/first-common-core-lawsuit-tossed-out

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

I was unaware of this lawsuit when I posted the Utah lawsuit yesterday. Thanks to Truth in American Education for posting this.

http://truthinamericaneducation.com/common-core-state-standards/kentucky-parent-files-common-core-lawsuit/

David Adams, a parent from Nicholasville, KY, filed a lawsuit against the Governor Steve Beshear, Senate President Robert Stivers, the Kentucky Board of Education, Council on Postsecondary Education and Lawrence County Board of Education for “for declaratory and injunctive relief relating to Defendants’ acceptance of Common Core State Standards.”

This is the first lawsuit related to the Common Core State Standards that I am aware of.

Here is the text of the complaint:

Plaintiff, David Adams, for his Complaint against Defendants, the Commonwealth of Kentucky, acting through the Office of the Governor (“Governor”), and Governor Steve Beshear, in his official capacity as Governor of the Commonwealth, Senate President Robert Stivers, in his official capacity as President of the Senate, Roger L. Marcum, in his official capacity as Chairman of the Kentucky Board of Education, Robert L. King, in his official capacity as President of the Council on Postsecondary Education and Cassandra Webb, in her official capacity as chairwoman of the Education Professional Standards Board respectfully states as follows:

I. NATURE OF ACTION
1.  This is a civil action for declaratory and injunctive relief relating to Defendants’ acceptance of Common Core State Standards. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief in the form of a court order reversing Defendants’ illegal acceptance of Common Core State Standards and forbidding any continued action relating to same until such time as specific legislative approval is granted.

2.  Time is of the essence in resolving this issue because substantial public resources have been and are currently being devoted to implementation of Common Core despite a clear constitutional mandate intended to provide for an efficient system of common schools. Continued delay in limiting the state officials’ activities in this matter to within the scope of Kentucky law and the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Kentucky sets a terrible precedent for ignoring constitutional  limits on executive and legislative branch authority to protect Kentuckians’ rights to seek and pursue their safety and happiness as explicitly guaranteed by the Kentucky Constitution.

3.  The judicial branch of the Commonwealth of Kentucky is the only remaining venue for redress available to Plaintiff.

4.  As a result of the actions of Defendants, Plaintiff respectfully seeks a temporary and permanent injunction against Defendants’ continued implementation of Common Core until such time as the General Assembly provides appropriate legislation to restore constitutionally mandated efficiency to the Commonwealth’s system of common schools.

II.  THE PARTIES

5.  David Adams is a taxpayer and citizen of the Commonwealth of Kentucky and parent of two students in Jessamine County Schools.

6. Governor Steve Beshear is sued in his official capacity as Governor of the Commonwealth of Kentucky.

7. Senate President Robert Stivers is sued in his official capacity as Senate President of the Commonwealth of Kentucky and a member of the Executive Branch of government pursuant to Section 85 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Kentucky.

8. Roger L. Marcum is sued in his official capacity as Chairman of the Kentucky Board of Education.

9. Robert L. King is sued in his official capacity as President of the Kentucky Council on Postsecondary Education.

10. Cassandra Webb is sued in her official capacity as Chairwoman of the Education Professional Standards Board.

III. JURISDICTION

11. Jurisdiction is proper pursuant to KRS 418.040 and Kentucky Constitution Section 112 (5).

IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS AND BACKGROUND
A. Common Core State Standards
12. On February 10, 2010, Defendants announced acceptance of Common Core State Standards despite the fact the standards had not yet been written. Subsequent obligations of the Commonwealth related to Common Core could not be known then and still cannot in order to reasonably determine the efficacy for their implementation.

  13. The Constitution of the Commonwealth, in Section 183, places responsibility for providing an efficient system of common schools upon the legislature. The Kentucky Supreme Court clarified this to mean “common schools shall be monitored by the General Assembly to assure they are operated without waste, duplication, mismanagement or political influence.” Rose v. Council for Better Education, Inc. (Ky. 1989) 790 S.W.2d 186. By failing to intervene when Defendants obligated Kentuckians to unspecified mandates, duties, responsibilities and costs related to Common Core, the General Assembly violated Section 183.

V. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

14. Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief pursuant to KRS 418.040. Plaintiff seeks a judicial determination of the rights and duties of the parties with regard to an actual controversy arising out of Defendants’ acceptance of Common Core State Standards without sufficient knowledge or understanding of the costs of such action in violation of state law.

15. David Adams seeks injunctive relief relating to Defendants’ illegal acceptance and implementation of Common Core State Standards, namely reversal of such acceptance and implementation until such time as the General Assembly grants approval of same by appropriate legislation.

VI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief as follows:
1. Plaintiff requests the court enter a judgment declaring the legislature erred in failing to prevent acceptance and implementation of Common Core State Standards by Defendants and that such acceptance must be rescinded and that such implementation must cease and be reversed until such time as the General Assembly makes a determination by appropriate legislation specifically regarding efficiency in the Commonwealth’s system of common schools pertaining to standards, curriculum, best practices and testing.

On Senator Mike Lee’s website we find this awesome news about a resolution denouncing the Obama administrations coercion of states using Common Core.

http://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=19eb6b2b-762e-4945-8462-a089fc08c81c

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) will introduce a resolution strongly denouncing the Obama Administration’s coercion of states into adopting Common Core State Standards by conferring preferences in federal grants and flexibility waivers.

The resolution is co-sponsored by Senators Tim Scott (R-South Carolina), Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Mike Lee (R-Utah), Ted Cruz (R-Texas), James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma), Thad Cochran (R-Mississippi), Roger Wicker (R-Mississippi), and Mike Enzi (R-Wyoming).

“The Obama Administration has effectively bribed and coerced states into adopting Common Core,” said Graham.  “Blanket education standards should not be a prerequisite for federal funding.  In order to have a competitive application for some federal grants and flexibility waivers, states have to adopt Common Core.  This is simply not the way the Obama Administration should be handling education policy. Our resolution affirms that education belongs in the hands of our parents, local officials and states.”

“It is crucial that the money being spent on education in Oklahoma be controlled by Oklahomans who are familiar with the needs of our schools and students,” said Inhofe. “This is why I am proud to join Senator Graham in introducing a resolution that enforces vital education practices of leaving the decisions of children’s educational needs to the state and the parents.

“Educational decisions are best made by parents and teachers – not bureaucrats in Washington,” said Scott.  “While Common Core started out as a state-led initiative, the federal government unfortunately decided to use carrots and sticks to coerce states into adopting national standards and assessments. That is simply the wrong choice for our kids.”

“Common Core is another example of Washington trying to control all aspects of Americans’ lives, including the education of our children,” said Cruz.  “We should not allow the federal government to dictate what our children learn; rather, parents, through their teachers, local schools and state systems, should be able to direct the education of their children.”

“Common Core has become polluted with Federal guidelines and mandates that interfere with the ability of parents, teachers and principals to deliver the education our children deserve,” said Lee.  “Rather than increasing coercion, we should be demanding that further interference by the U.S. Department of Education with respect to state decisions on academic content standards be eliminated.”

“Decisions about what content students should be taught have enormous consequences for children and so should be made as close as possible to the affected parents and students,” said Grassley.  “Federal interference in this area disrupts the direct line of accountability between parents and those making decisions about their children’s education.  It also takes away needed flexibility from state education leaders to make changes as they learn more about what works and what does not.”

“This Administration favors a national school board approach to education and likes to ignore individual states’ decisions,” said Enzi. “It uses ‘free’ money as the carrot to dangle in front of the states. In effect it is trying to force states into accepting a one-size-fits-all approach. This coercion with Common Core is another example of the federal government trampling on states’ rights and is the wrong approach to fixing our education system in this country.”

The major provisions of the resolution affirm:

• Education belongs in the hands of parents, local education officials, and states.
• The federal government should not coerce states into adopting common education standards.
• No future application process for any federal grant funds or waivers should award additional points, or provide any preference, for the adoption of Common Core.

FACT SHEET

Purpose of the Resolution:

• Strongly denounces President Obama’s coercion of states into adopting Common Core by conferring preferences in federal grants and flexibility waivers.
• Strongly supports the restoration and protection of state authority and flexibility in establishing and defining challenging student academic standards and assessments.

What the Resolution States:

• Education belongs in the hands of parents, local education officials, and states.
• The federal government should not coerce states into adopting common education standards.
• No application process for any federal grant funds or waivers should award additional points, or provide any preference, for the adoption of Common Core.
• The link between adoption of common education standards and federal funds will result in increased federal control over education.
• The resolution does not retract any federal funds or waivers already issued to states.
• The resolution does not evaluate the content of the Common Core standards already developed and adopted by states.

Resolution Denouncing the President’s Coercion of States into Adopting Common Core State Standards

This is, to my knowledge, the first lawsuit that involves Common Core as a participant. In this instance a child in Alpine School District who is very bright and academically advanced, was prevented from advancing to his appropriate skill level and has been psychologically damaged as a result of the public education system’s insistence on pounding square pegs into round holes to make all children common. Common Core hurts children both at the upper and lower end of the learning spectrum by forcing them to advance at the pace of the group. It is true conveyor belt education in the worst possible way. In speaking with Dr. Gary Thompson (this family’s psychologist) and Ed Flint (their attorney), about their 45-page petition filed with the court, Common Core’s top down, one-size-fits-all approach to education is a firm part of the educational system that prevents gifted and special needs children from getting the educational experience they need. This is precisely what has happened in this case. Although the petition never mentions “Common Core” by name, Dr. Thompson explained that it absolutely plays a part in how the system prevented this child from advancing to an appropriate skill level since he was far beyond the course work being presented to him.

To protect the family’s identity, they will go by Mr. and Mrs. T below, and their child, his teacher, and school are unnamed. Comments by me are in italics below. There is far too much to include in this post so I have included highlights from the petition, but cannot tell the whole story.

The petition contains:

1. Allegations of sustained emotional abuse towards mother and 11-year old son.
2. Allegations of retaliation for exercising parental right of participation in Public School
3. Allegations of retaliation for utilizing professional help linked to “Anti-Common Core” advocacy.
4. Allegations of unethical and invalid use of psychological testing to conform to predetermined outcome.
5. Allegations of ignoring parent’s desperate pleas for assistance for son.
6. Allegation of callous attitude towards parents as exhibited in 50 pages of “obtained” Alpine District inter-office/district emails.
7. Forwarding files/petition and evidence to Utah Attorney General’s Office for investigation.
8. Civil Suit for Tort damages pending.
9. Obtained District Email Thread over past 8 months.
10. Allegations that Alpine School District violated FERPA by losing this child’s entire cumulative file and failed to notify the parents.

The below items appear in the actual petition except where noted. The numbers below are reordered for this post.

1. “Child is the son of Petitioners Mr. & Mrs. T, currently residing at ______., ______, Utah, where child is an advanced gifted student at ______ school, assigned to the 7th Grade…..”

2. “Within 30-45 days of child’s new assignment to Mrs. _____’s classroom, the parents respectfully and professionally advised, in writing, child’s teachers and counselors of serious concerns with his behavior, attitude and apparent boredom with the schoolwork he was assigned. No attempts were made to determine whether child might have developed an emotional disability that might be affecting him, as required by Child Find.  20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(3)(A). (Exhibit P2, Emails from Mrs. T to teacher dated January 27, 2013 and teacher’s response dated 1/29/13)….”

3. “Problems and contention quickly arose with teacher.  Mrs. T and teacher kept in regular contact through email, and although teacher engaged in some unprofessional name calling (Referring to child as “The goof” (see Exhibit P3, Email dated March 22, 2013) and assumptions of laziness based on failure to turn in assignments, there was no attempt to seek testing or evaluation of child to determine if there was a learning disability or mental health issue that might be affecting him, as required by “Child Find………”

(Oak Note: Later in the petition I found the disturbing email the teacher actual wrote (in part) to Mrs. T referencing her child:  “The goof either did not do or can’t find the homework I gave him to do last night. Nothing. Aargh…Just letting your know.”)

4. The dialogue continues:  “January 29: Email to teacher.  My first concerns that child was not doing well in school.  In the email I am sending is my original email, her response, and my reply back.  February 4: Email & Subsequent meeting with teacher:  Child missed the deadline of a major project.  She starts saying things I feel were a personal attack against child, “He’ll learn, eventually, to look up at the board and understand that the things up there actually apply to him.”  In this email she states sometime soon she will give him phone numbers of classmates to ask questions. She has a rule in her classroom kids are not allowed to ask parents for help, only peers.

5. Petitioners sought out tutoring from the school to help child with Math as he was not turning in assignments and grades were slipping. The Tutor worked with child a few sessions but told Petitioners that child had no deficits. Teacher asked that child seek assistance from his classmates rather than a paid tutor.

6. A long string emails between the parents and the school highlight the extreme concern the parents had about their son’s growing and observable anxiety, sensory, and depressive symptoms, and the school’s increasing contempt with the parents for questioning their contentions that “nothing was wrong” with child.  Email communications between the administration, teachers and special education staff detail the shocking arrogance of a public school administration dead set on convincing the parents that “nothing was wrong” with their son.

7. As child’s symptoms and behaviors became more frequent and severe, Petitioner Mrs. T. attempted to solicit assistance from school Vice Principal, Mr.____, and recalls this interaction, “November 5- The night before child had his worst and longest meltdown.  He was kicking, screaming, and throwing things for 4 long, horrific hours.  He had a very hard time waking up the next day from pure exhaustion and I brought him to school late.  I walked into Mr. VP’s office and told him child was “in crisis”.  I used those words exactly I explained the situation.  I told him that child was diagnosed with Asperger’s disorder, that he was not challenged at school and that it was causing problems at home.  I told Mr. VP I needed to get an IEP or 504.  He told me child would not qualify for either one because he has good grades and is ahead of his grade, not behind.  He told me we were lucky that child was so smart, but he would check with the district and let me know what resources they have and he would get back with me that day.  He took down my number and never called.  From this meeting I had no idea of child’s rights to be considered for an IEP or 504.”

8. Mrs. T. persisted with an email on about November 6, 2013 where she checked back with Mr. VP. He responded and said he was waiting to talk with Mrs.____ the “Gifted & Talented” Coordinator, about our situation.  He said we could request a 504 (not an IEP because he wouldn’t qualify) but the chances were slim he would get one; despite being rebuffed, Mrs. T decided to be proactive and contact the G&T coordinator herself, anticipating that surely a gifted and talented specialist would understand her child.

9. Petitioner Mrs. T attempted to solicit any help or intervention on behalf of child by visiting with G&T coordinator of Alpine District on about November 18, 2014.  She describes that meeting, “November 18- My meeting with Mrs. G&T did not go well.  As soon as I walked into her office I could tell she had something to prove to me.  I told her my son had Asperger’s and was suffering from things such as being able to ask teachers for help.  She immediately stopped me and told me that was something he was just going to have to “work on”.  So I told her he was not challenged and was not learning anything.  She became defensive to that and pulled up his ALL testing scores on her computer.  She read his scores to me and told me clearly he was not the smartest kid in school.  I told her about his meltdowns at home.  She replied that she spoke with his teachers at school and he was the model student.  She looked at me and told me there was a disconnect between home and school, so the behavior could not be coming from school.  I became tearful and told her this meeting was a waste of time because I could tell she made up her mind before I walked in.  She was not willing to help me.  She told me she too has a smart son and karate helps him, so I could try karate with child.  I asked her for community resources for gifted and talented or Asperger’s and she said she didn’t know of any.  I cried on the way home- again a dead end while I watched my child suffer more and more each day.”

(Oak summary: At this point the parents seek professional help from Dr. Gary Thompson. The child’s personal file is found to be empty and missing years of history that might help piece together what’s happening with the child. Dr. Thompson travels to the child’s former school district seeking records which they had agreed to provide, but upon arrival (after flight) Alpine School District had contacted the school and somehow convinced the school district to rescind their prior approval. Various tests are now performed by the school on the child to make determinations about his psychological issue.)

10. “On ‘the record’ (the entire IEP Determination meeting was digitally recorded, in open view of all attendees, and after advance written notice of intent to so record), Dr. Thompson summarily informed the entire school team that in his experience of attending close to 500 IEP meetings, he has never seen the amount of unethical, illegal and harmful behavior by a group of public school educators in his entire career. ……“

11. “Taking into account the totality of the Petitioner’s experiences, written documentation via emails to the Petitioner’s spanning over a year, apparent violations of “Child Find’ obligations by the District, callous inter-office emails between the school staff and Alpine District Administrators, the inclusion of invalid “testing” materials into the decision making process despite multiple and specific formal objections by the Petitioner’s Advocate regarding multiple serious ethical errors and practices associated with testing, submission of emotional “testing” results from the school that indicated that child displayed absolutely “perfect” mental health,  the Petitioners and Advocate Dr. Gary Thompson believe that this “decision” was made prior to the meeting with Petitioners, and the decision was merely relayed to Petitioners at the meeting……”

12. “These actions resulted in multiple and repeated violations to the educational and civil rights of child, and ultimately has resulted in a denial of FAPE (“Free and Appropriate Public School Education). Petitioners will prove via documentation, expert testimony from a pediatric neuro-psychologist, peer reviewed research in child clinical psychology, email exchanges between the District and the Petitioners, copies of  email communications between school and Alpine District, and transcripts from the IEP meeting that Alpine District knowingly conspired to deprive child from obtaining special education services afforded under the 2004 IDEA, which resulted in a blatant and dangerous denial of FAPE…….”

13. “The school team forwarded what they purported to be, all assessment results to the child’s family on Friday, January 24, 2014.  A review of their assessment showed that absolutely no valid testing or inquiries into child confirmed anxiety and depressive issues were part of the assessment performed by the school Special Education Team.  This dangerous pattern of conforming evaluation protocols and results to preconceived, “one-size-fits-all” evaluation procedures not only resulted in a final evaluation that was invalid, unscientific and not comprehensive in nature, it was the final piece of conclusive evidence that joined a long line of factual events, evidence and behaviors which led the Petitioners and an experienced Education Advocate to conclude that Alpine District performed a fraudulent, unethical and ultimately dangerous evaluation of child…..”

14. The violations by school and Alpine District were neither minor, nor has child “reached the maximum of his education potential.”  The violations were blatant and egregious in nature, which resulted in significant emotional harm to both the mother and child in this action.

15. “Given the totality of the record, counsel for the Petitioners, licensed doctoral level clinicians and advocates for the Petitioners, and the Petitioners themselves are shocked at the level of apparent disconnect and callousness exhibited by Alpine School District towards child.  Petitioners allege that Alpine School District retaliated against the Petitioners for exercising their rights of parental choice and involvement in their child’s public education experience, and expressed contempt after the Petitioners retained the services of Early Life Child Psychology & Education Center to assist them with obtaining relief for their wonderfully complex, quirky and gifted child.”

The following is a response to a former State Board member who weighed in on a FaceBook discussion about why the State Board had rushed to adopt the Common Core Standards according to a timeline that seemed to exclude serious consideration and certainly excluded the possibility of public consideration. He insists that the board studied the standards for months and that “anyone call those folks and they would tell you that is what happened.”

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Joel, many of us in this group have indeed asked members of the board about the adoption and more, and when their answers didn’t match up with the verifiable facts, our confidence in them was understandably diminished.

I understand what you are saying about the Board reviewing the standards for months… you are probably referring to the DRAFT of the standards that had been made public. Funny thing though, the board’s feedback resulting from this months-long review has never been publicly shared so I guess we’ll just have to take their word for it in spite of the fact that representative government doesn’t typically require blind trust. Perhaps they felt confident that private reviews of the draft was adequate, but if they had anticipated that the standards writers would actually incorporate any of the feedback of those select few who were even able to give it, wouldn’t they also be anticipating the possibility of significant changes in the final version? Or, is this an admission that everyone knew the standards would be what they would be and that the board’s decision was really about whether to go along with the other states, and not about the standards on their own merits?

You’re right, meeting minutes can be vague at times. Good thing we have the audio. As Brenda had so succinctly put it in the meeting where the board authorized the initial MOU for the state to participate with the Common Core initiative in the first place, “half a billion is no small chuck of change” and “it doesn’t concern me that it will be so wildly out of line that we couldn’t live with it.”

Two Days after the final draft was released the board voted to adopt on first reading. Then a handful of weeks more there was the final vote. Why the rush? They wouldn’t be implemented for over a year. In the audio of that first board meeting that Connor referred to, Larry Shumway makes it clear that the standards had to be adopted for an upcoming interview about the State’s Race to the Top application. Now, after losing out on that grant, the board inexplicably insists that there was no Federal influence on their decision!

Dave Thomas stated in our recent debate that the Federal government was deliberately excluded from the initiative, implying the USED jumped on the bandwagon later with Race to the Top. I wonder, did he read the MOU the board had authorized the superintendent to sign in 2009 that clearly outlines what the Federal role would be? It’s only a couple of pages long.

Or, there is the congressional hearing around that same time where T. Kenneth James, then president of the Council of Chief State School Officers said, “I think it [the Common Core Initiative] can be done without the perception that the federal government is driving the train.” Then they discussed how the Feds leverage education funding and use their “pulpit” to promote it.

On your blog, Joel, you talk about the public comment on the standards to the board as evidence that the public was aware of what was happening and link to the minutes of two State Board Meetings as evidence. If anyone bothers to click on the links and read, they will see that Oak (one person, not plural) was one of two “public” and the only one to comment on standards. It turns out that at that time he was talking about Utah’s own Social Studies Standards, not Common Core. He also presented the board with a petition that you mention, also not about Common Core, but about including instruction about our country as a Republic in our state Social Studies Standards. At the end of Oak’s comments in one of the two meetings he makes reference to some new, national standards that he’d heard of saying something about how he hoped we wouldn’t go that direction. Evidence of the board’s representation, of their engagement with their constituents, or should I say constituent, on Common Core?

You can read more of what I’ve already written about what I think are flaws with the adoption process: (http://www.utahnsagainstcommoncore.com/the-common-core-standards-were-not-talking-about/.)

Some of us have asked about the costs and why there wasn’t a formal cost study done. There was the claim you shared with me on FaceBook about the tens of millions saved by adopting the Common Core. Didn’t you say $75 million? I read over the budget for the past four years and couldn’t find that. I asked you for a reference then and am still waiting.

You probably don’t recall the “bagels and bills” event that I attended and sat at the same table as you did. I had come in hopes of meeting my State Board representative with whom I’d been unable to connect via email or phone. Instead I sat dumbfounded as he used his time to talk to the audience about the crazy moms (lumping all mothers’ voices into one) who were publicly discussing their concerns about Common Core, which he called “conspiracy theories,” and basically asked the local school board and local chamber to disregard what he characterized as unfounded fringe opinions, as he had determined to do. All this without his ever having engaged in a conversation with a single one of us. I never was able to introduce myself to him that day.

There was the time that Christel was speaking to a board member about why the board was unwilling to meet and discuss with some of us our concerns. The board member said she had met several times with Ms. Swasey. Christel had to ask, “Did you know that is me? I’m Ms. Swasey?” I could go on, but as you can see, it’s kind of embarrassing and that is not my goal.

It’s not these interactions alone that shake people’s confidence. I am always told to “read the standards” as if they are so wonderful I couldn’t possibly have concerns if I’d actually read them. We parents don’t have the benefit of the official professional development to help us overlook the obtuse and jargon-filled wording of the standards themselves to construct generous interpretations of their quality.

I went to the Logan debate prepared to discuss the standards themselves and instead fielded nebulous questions about what my “dream education system” would look like. I thought it silly that as Tami talked about the standards that night she gave examples of counting to 100 and basic addition – as if that’s all the standards are, as if we didn’t teach those things before Common Core. She got applause for claiming that with common standards kids will be able to move from state to state and be on the same page. Is she not aware that there are four adoption paths outlined in Appendix A of the CC Math Standards? Utah adopted was is called the “integrated” path that spreads the topics across classes and grades so uniquely that it seems likely that Utah will be even more out of sync with what other states (including those that adopted CC) are teaching, and in what order, than ever. Only one other state did this. So, unless those who were applauding are planning to move to Vermont they may be in for a rude awakening. What about all those students who move here from other states, or a homeschool student trying to be placed back into public school, but who had been studying math by discrete subject? How will they fit into a system that teaches a little algebra here and a little geometry there? Did the board study that? If commonality is the most appealing benefit that is supposed to compensate Utahans for what we’ve given up, why are we implementing it the way we are?

Then there is the increase in informational texts recommended for ELA. Appendix A of the ELA standards is the “research” for the standards. It is basically just an essay about text complexity with only a couple of footnotes through which the writers notably, in the first instance, consult themselves. It offers some kind of interesting insights about how text complexity is measured and how text complexity differs across various media and over time. Then, it puts forth what is basically a hypothesis that if kids dissect a graduated complexity of informational texts they will be more career-ready. It is followed by a list of other research papers (not directly referenced to anything in the text itself as one would expect of a “research” paper), also primarily about text complexity. There is no Newkirk, who wrote about how kids who read a lot and are intrinsically engaged in what they read are better readers and writers. There is no Oatley who has been recognized internationally for his research on the psychological effects of reading and writing and the importance of reading fiction. The Common Core hypothesis for ELA is that in college and as adults we typically read more informational text, therefore we should read more in K-12 as well. It’s nothing more than an untested theory that is made all the more concerning by the fact that there does exist research that might suggest  the opposite is true – that, for that very same reason, students ought to be reading more classic literature and fiction to voluntarily increase reading stamina and to develop a more sure foundation in the ideas of the best thinkers and observers of our civilization as can only be conveyed in the great literary works that have outlasted the educational fads of the moment.

I’m not saying I am absolutely right or have all the answers but am discouraged that the board can’t offer anything of substance to counter concerns, but tend to rely on endorsements as if it were evidence.

They don’t even seem to be familiar with the basics of the agreements they authorized to be signed, like the 15% cap on adding to the standards. The board gave a presention to members of the legislature in which they denied that such limitation even existed despite the fact that we were able to show them several places in primary governing documents where it did exist, not counting the minutes of the board meeting where the 15% was stated expressly in their adopting vote. (See slide 20 of the board’s presentation posted here: http://www.utahnsagainstcommoncore.com/rebuttal-to-usbe-presentation-on-common-core/)

Sorry about rambling on. I share all this “water under the bridge” stuff only to make the point that many of us have “asked the board” and discovered that as much as we like you and the members of the board personally, and as well-intentioned as they undoubtedly are, they haven’t proved to be a reliable source of information or insight on these topics. That is why your advice here “to ask” comes across as a little condescending and why many of us are looking forward to enabling a process of getting members on the state board who are more electorally accountable to their constituents, who might demonstrate a little more independence of thought instead of parroting the company line, and who might be a little more diligent with the details.

It’s not about finding someone who always agrees with one view on Common Core or another. I’d prefer disagreement in the context of an honest discourse about the pros and cons of de facto national standards,

or about what is really meant by the “critical thinking” that seems to be the magic sauce of the standards according to proponents, (you thought “state-led” had a lot of different meanings!)

or about the obligations associated with and our reliance on federal funds,

or about whether workforce preparation should be the primary goal of education

and about how the adoption of the Common Core standards and the other stimulus-driven reforms affect Utah in all of those areas.

In conclusion, repeating to parents ad nauseam talking points about how the standards are “rigorous” (because we said so) and “internationally benchmarked” (“in spirit,” to quote directly from the CCSS) smacks of propaganda. I really don’t think I’m the only person who is tired of such nonsense and that’s why I believe the controversy around this topic is not going to die down any time soon. Advising clearly frustrated constituents who have done their homework to “ask” board members who haven’t been able to demonstrate that they’ve done theirs only adds fuel to the fire.

My head is swimming in disbelief. Alpine School District is the first district in the state to publish a Common Core test opt-out form and make it available to all parents in the school district. It’s a simple one page form. Unfortunately I can’t locate it on their website, but I was sent a copy from a parent in the district. It’s official and I’ve confirmed it with Board member Wendy Hart. Congratulations Alpine School District. Thank you for listening.

Download a pdf:ASD Sage Opt Out Form

There is a great article by George Will in the Washington Post slamming Common Core. Here’s a clip and link.

Doubts over Common Core