Category Archives: Reference

Wow, this 16 year old in Arkansas does a great job taking down Common Core. He shows the copyright on these standards and he’s got video of the Jason Zimba testimony from the MA board meeting where he admits to Sandra Stotsky (a member of the board) that Common Core’s “college and career readiness” won’t prepare students for selective colleges. He then goes into PARCC, one of the 2 federally funded assessment consortia. He then this in to Achieve and how they want a data system (didn’t mention or maybe know that Achieve was funded by Bill Gates). Then he shows how New York and Kentucky did after a year of Common Core, on content tests, bombing, and plays the audio from the superintendent of a school district who sent an audio message out to parents announcing Common Core is hurting their children. He shows federal database website that says it’s a federally mandated database that all states will submit student information to the federal Dept. of Ed. He shows how PARCC has signed an agreement with the feds to turn over data, (and mentions SBAC signed the same agreement which is what Utah exited last year, only to sign an agreement with AIR in January, the official SBAC partner. We need to know what AIR has signed with the feds). He shows a video clip of a man talking about pulling data from everywhere in order to “make this system work” and “this is the glue that holds everything together”. Then this man shows a slide showing a path to being a plumber or a doctor. The 16 year old then explains the colorful chart the guy showed that all the standards can be fit to specific career paths so they can tell from the computerized tests what your child would be good at and can direct their career path. He then rips into Pearson showing how they purchased education companies, sometimes at 2 times the value of the company, in order to take out competitors, so that McGraw-Hill, Houghton Mifflin, and Pearson, control nearly all the education market. This is a great presentation.

Reference

Common Core standards are just the tip of the iceberg

October 14, 2013 Oak Norton Leave a comment

Prepared by Alyson Williams, this is an excellent little Prezi presentation on what people don’t typically see that is related to Common Core.

Reference

Parents Launch Executive Order to Stop Common Core and to Stop Student Data Mining

October 10, 2013 Christel Swasey 4 Comments

This week, a group of Florida parents, supported by parents and educators nationwide, released an executive order, demanding an end to Common Core and the parentally unauthorized student data mining that’s taking place in every state.

As parents, we claim the privilege of directing our childrens’ educations, free from SLDS (state longitudinal database tracking systems), free from Common Core-aligned testing, standards, or “model” curriculum; free from private trade group EIMAC/CCSSO data collection, free from federal micromanagement, free from federal “accountability”; free from the both student and teacher data mining and tracking that is offensive to individual liberty and to Constitutional, local control.

As parents and teachers, we claim the privilege outlined in the Declaration of Independence that government is by consent of the governed. We, the governed, have not been asked nor have we approved these unvetted standards and systems. Therefore, any governance of children or school staff under the Common Core agenda is simply invalid.

Why: The promises of the promoters of the Common Core Standards do not add up. The evidence is overwhelming, and increases daily, that the Common Core agenda damages where it claims to serve; yet those who push back against the Common Core agenda are disrespected by school boards and in hearings around the nation. This is outrageous. We are the children’s parents; children are not the government’s human capital” despite what the Department of Education repeatedly claims.

Along with the executive order, parents have issued a longer, referenced document that explains the reasoning behind the executive order. This document is entitled “Welcome to the Common Core Fuzzy Math: Common Core Equals Conditions Plus Coercion Plus Conflict of Interest.”

Please pass this message along.

Here is a partial list of all the parent-educator groups working to fight the federal-and-corporate partnered machine of Common Core.

Reference

Lowering the Bar: Pioneer Institute Whitepaper

October 2, 2013 Oak Norton Leave a comment

Pioneer Institute has released a new White Paper by R. James Milgram and Sandra Stotsky entitled “Lowering the Bar: How Common Core Math Fails to Prepare High School Students for STEM.” The purpose of this paper is to explain what the level of college readiness in Common Core’s mathematics standards is and what this level means for the high school mathematics and science curriculum, post-secondary education, and mathematics-dependent professional programs.

Among the topics covered is an extensive expose on Jason Zimba’s (one of the 3 math standards authors) statements regarding his definition and explanation of college and career readiness from 2010 when the standards were released, to what he now says he meant back then. Members of our State Board of Education are under the impression that Jason’s 2013 statements are accurate representations of what he meant back in 2010, but looking at the full text of what he said back then, it’s totally clear what he was talking about.

You can download the white paper here:

http://pioneerinstitute.org/download/lowering-the-bar-how-common-core-math-fails-to-prepare-high-school-students-for-stem/

Here’s a snippet:

To verify the accuracy of the official minutes
of the March 2010 meeting, the authors of
this paper obtained a copy of the official
recording of the meeting. Its sound quality
is excellent. Zimba’s exact comment in his
initial presentation was: “We have agreement
to the extent that it’s a fuzzy definition, that
the minimally college-ready student is a
student who passed Algebra II.”
Stotsky (a member of the state board at the
time) later asked him to clarify what he meant.
Zimba stated: “In my original remarks, I
didn’t make that point strongly enough or
signal the agreement that we have on this—
the definition of college readiness. I think it’s
a fair critique that it’s a minimal definition of
college readiness.”
Stotsky remarked at this point “for some
colleges,” and Zimba responded by stating:
“Well, for the colleges most kids go to, but
not for the colleges most parents aspire to.”
Stotsky then asked “Not for STEM? Not
for international competitiveness?” Zimba
responded “Not only not for STEM, it’s also
not for selective colleges. For example, for
UC Berkeley, whether you are going to be an
engineer or not, you’d better have precalculus
to get into UC Berkeley.”
Stotsky then said: “Right, but we have to
think of the engineering colleges and the
scientific pathway.”
Zimba added “That’s true, I think the third
pathway [a pathway that does not exist in
the final version. See Section V for further
discussion] goes a lot towards that. But your
issue is broader than that.”8
Stotsky agreed saying “I’m not just thinking
about selective colleges. There’s a much
broader question here. Zimba then added
“That’s right. It’s both, I think, in the sense of
being clear about what this college readiness
does and doesn’t get you, and that’s the big
subject.”
Stotsky then summarized her objections
to this minimalist definition by explaining
that a set of standards labeled as making
students college-ready when the readiness
level applies only to a certain type of college
and to a low level of mathematical expertise
wouldn’t command much international
respect in areas like technology, economics,
and business. Zimba appeared to agree as he
then said “OK. Thank you.”

Reference

The Exodus, opting out of Common Core assessments and data collection

September 10, 2013 Oak Norton 32 Comments

This is a post to share with all your friends and neighbors. Not everyone is going to do this, but we need as many people as possible to participate. If you have a child in school, please print out a copy of this form and send it in. Here’s a pdf copy and the text of the document is reproduced below which you can copy/paste into a word processor of your choice.

State National CAT / Data Collection Opt-Out Form (PDF)

To help spread the word, have your children share these small pass-along cards with their friends: My parents opted me out (PDF)

To properly introduce this topic, please check out this short interview clip my good friend Ken Cromar made for a documentary he’s making called Miracles. It’s an interview segment he did with Rabbi Daniel Lapin and it’s what we need right now to understand Miracles come after we take action. Please take action today. We need massive amounts of parents to opt-out of these assessments

State/National CAT/Data Collection Opt-Out Form

School:________________________________________________

Teacher(s):_____________________________________________

Student:_______________________________________________

First, I, _____________________, as the parent/guardian of ___________________, have a “fundamental liberty interest” in the care, custody and welfare of my child as codified in Utah Code §62A-4a-201. In exercise thereof, I hereby elect to exclude my child from participating in all computer adaptive tests (CAT) administered by or through Utah’s public education system (including but not limited to MAP/CRT/AIR/NWEA assessments) which are optional or required by the state for standardized testing. Utah code §62A-4a-201 states:

(d) The state recognizes that:
(i) a parent has the right, obligation, responsibility, and authority to raise, manage, train, educate, provide for, and reasonably discipline the parent’s children; and
(ii) the state’s role is secondary and supportive to the primary role of a parent.
(e) It is the public policy of this state that parents retain the fundamental right and duty to exercise primary control over the care, supervision, upbringing, and education of their children.

I take this action to protect the privacy and welfare of my child because these examinations contain behavioral testing¹ which I believe is a violation of state law² and the individual results are tracked in a statewide longitudinal database system (SLDS) which is accessible by the federal government and private entities³, used for school grading⁴, and allows my child’s personal information to be individually identifiable⁵. In taking this action, I recognize the state office may label my child as non-proficient⁶ which has negative repercussions.

I believe these tests are fundamentally flawed by attempting to test students on material to which they may have never been exposed. The fact that the exams are confidential⁷ so no one may examine the questions before or after a child takes the exam and that they provide psychometric feedback from embedded behavioral questions, are unacceptable to me as a parent.⁸

Second, I further opt my child out of any and all surveys that contain personal, financial, or any other information on our family, and from any other type of data collection method that would contain personal, private, and confidential information (eg. DNA collection).

To the extent that the above named school now, or in the future, possesses any data on my child, I do not give permission for such data to be passed to the state unless it is de-identified, aggregate data combined with that of many other students.

When CAT’s are given to my child’s class, I request that my child be provided an alternative exam that will be graded by my child’s teacher, or, alternatively, that my child be allowed to spend that time in quiet study.

I further request that the school keep a copy of this document in my child’s school file and that the school acknowledge my rights and their intent to support my decision by signing below and returning a copy to me.

Finally, this action is not intended to be an indication of my opinion regarding the quality of my child’s teacher(s), or of the school, but as a statement that my family refuses to participate in any activity that further erodes our privacy. I respect and appreciate your work in educating my child.

Please provide a copy to each of my son/daughter’s teachers who administer CAT assessments so they are aware that my child needs an alternate activity during testing.

Please contact me via email __________________ or phone ________________ if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

____________________

Parent

____________________ ___________ ___________

School Official Signature Title Date

1- http://le.utah.gov/~2013/bills/sbillenr/sb0175.pdf (line 66)

2- Utah Code Title 53A Section 302

3- http://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/pdf/ferparegs.pdf (page 13) and http://nces.ed.gov/programs/slds/state.asp?stateabbr=UT

4- http://le.utah.gov/~2013/bills/sbillenr/SB0271.htm

5- http://www.schools.utah.gov/assessment/Adaptive-Assessment-System/FAQTop10Questions.aspx (pg. 17)

6- At the 8/2/2013 Utah State Board of Education meeting, amendments to SB 271 were made to label students non-proficient if they failed to take the CAT standardized assessments

7- http://www.schools.utah.gov/assessment/Adaptive-Assessment-System/FAQTop10Questions.aspx (search “confidential”)

8- https://www.utahnsagainstcommoncore.com/dr-thompsons-letter-to-superintendent-menlove/

Reference

28 Questions about the Common Core

August 15, 2013 Oak Norton 3 Comments

Susan Ohanian recently sent this list of questions to officials in Vermont. I am copy/pasting the article from VTdigger because this needs to be seen by everyone. Switch Utah for Vermont and the questions still apply. These are questions our Utah leaders need to address as well.

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

Editor’s note: This op-ed is by Susan Ohanian of Charlotte, a longtime teacher and author of 25 books on education policy and practice. Her website is at www.susanohanian.org.

Author’s note: North Carolina Lt. Gov. Daniel J. Forest wrote an open letter to the state’s chief education officer, asking 67 questions about the Common Core State Standards. That letter provoked my own open letter to Vermont leaders who make critical decisions about educating our children. Every Vermonter has a stake in their answers.

Dear Gov. Shumlin, Secretary Vilaseca, members of the State Board of Education, and members of the House and Senate Committees on Education:

The Common Core State Standards

1. In an August 2010 press release, Education Secretary Armando Vilaseca stated that Vermont had been “actively involved in the development and review of these new Common Core State Standards (CCSS).”

• Please provide the names of these Vermonters “actively involved” in this CCSS development; include minutes and materials.

• Please forward all CCSS-related correspondence between the Vermont State Education Agency, the governor, and members of the Vermont Legislature between January 2009 and June 2010.

2. Did the secretary, the State Board of Education and members of the legislative education committees examine dissenting views before adopting the CCSS?

• Please provide a list of individuals, groups, associations providing reasons for NOT pursuing CCSS.

3. Can you point to pedagogical research supporting the following CCSS directives (offered as tiny examples of inappropriate mandates)?

• Kindergarten: Isolate and pronounce the initial, medial vowel, and final sounds (phonemes) in three-phoneme words.

• Grade 6: Establish and maintain a formal style in writing.

4. In a commentary in VTDigger, Aug. 29, 2010, Secretary Vilaseca asserted, “The Common Core State Standards are comparable to the most rigorous international education standards.”

• Please name the international standards used as CCSS benchmarks.

5. The Vermont Agency of Education states that CCSS are needed “To enable students from the U.S. to compete with their peers globally.”

• Please provide research showing a causal relationship between any national standards and economic competitiveness.

6. What was inadequate about Vermont’s previous standards?

• Please provide evidence of Vermont schools not teaching our students to read, write, speak, listen, and learn math for the past several decades.

7. What is the cost of providing teachers with resources to make the change to CCSS?

• Is this cost the responsibility of taxpayers in local districts?

• Has consideration been given to what schools will have to sacrifice in order to meet the standards?

8. Were local school boards consulted before CCSS adoption?

• Please provide details of these discussions.

9. The Vermont Agency of Education recommended that teachers watch a video featuring David Coleman, a chief architect of the CCSS, advising students who read several grade levels below the complex text assigned to the class: “You’re going to practice it again and again and again and again … so there’s a chance you can finally do that level of work.”

• How does this CCSS approach fit with the personalized education for every student?

10. When Vermont adopted CCSS, what convincing information superseded the fact that the radical CCSS, written by non-educators, was not research-based, not field-tested, not proven effective?

11. The State Board can change/alter the CCSS by “15%” to accommodate local needs.

• What constitutes a percentage point when modifying CCSS?

• Who can request such modifications for Vermont?

• To whom does Vermont submit modifications?

• What happens if changes above “15%” are made?

12. The Pioneer Institute estimates the cost to implement CCSS nationally at about $16 billion over the next seven years. Six Rockland County (New York) school districts estimate a four-year cost of $10,886,712. What is the cost projection for Vermont?

Assessments

13. How is the SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) aligned to CCSS better than current assessments (which Vermont taxpayers paid a lot to develop)? Include correspondence, and documentation of Vermont participation in SBAC meetings.

14. Teachers and parents have expressed concerns about the length of the pilot tests. What is your best estimate for the time CCSS assessments will take from regular school studies?

15. How do you plan to address challenges posed by the lack of transparency in these assessments?

• Who will determine cut scores, the number of right answers students need on a test to be deemed proficient, on the new CCSS exams?

• What happens to students who do not meet these cut scores?

16. Why did Vermont decide not to field test CCSS assessments prior to the complete roll-out?

17. How will the CCSS tests affect students in alternative programs such as the Walden Project offered through Vergennes Union High School and other remarkable placed-based learning projects?

• Can you offer assurance that CCSS assessments will “test for grit, teamwork, communication, innovation, ambition and the like?” [See John Merrow Open Letter to Architects of the Common Core, May 29, 2013]

18. So far this year, Oklahoma, Alabama and Georgia have withdrawn from assessments associated with CCSS. Has Vermont looked into this as an option? Why or why not?

19. To accommodate just the technological requirements for CCSS assessments, Florida budgeted an additional $450 million and California an extra $1 billion. What has Vermont budgeted for technological improvements to ensure our schools meet the basic requirements for CCSS assessment?

20. Does every Vermont school have bandwidth capacity for the CCSS assessments? Please provide a list.

21. Will the implementation of new technology requirements to accommodate CCSS assessment require local schools to hire additional IT staff?

Origin of the Common Core

22. Do you think that the fact that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation spent several hundred million dollars to create and promote the CCSS, shutting teachers out of the process, puts the democratic process in jeopardy?

23. In his State of the Union address President Obama referenced CCSS: “We’ve convinced nearly every state in the country …” What form did federal “persuasion” take in Vermont’s decision?

24. In a June 2013 letter sent to the Chief State School Officers, U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan stated, “The Department of Education (DOE) is open to additional flexibility for states in … one particular element of teacher and leader evaluation.”

• If CCSS and assessments are not federally mandated programs, why and how is the federal government able to offer flexibility to states?

25. Secretary Duncan: “Given … the dramatic changes in curricula that teachers and principals are now starting to teach, and the transition to new assessments aligned to those standards, the Department will, on a state-by-state basis, allow states up to one additional year before using their new evaluation systems to inform personnel determinations.”

• Exactly what does “evaluation systems to inform personnel determinations” mean in Vermont? What is the federal role in how we evaluate our teachers?

Data collection

26. InBloom, the national database of personal student information associated with the implementation of CCSS, states that it “cannot guarantee the security of the information stored, or that the information will not be intercepted when it is being transmitted.”

• Please detail any communication between representatives from inBloom and the Vermont Agency of Education.

27. What is your position on the lawsuit filed by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) against the U.S. Department of Education for issuing regulations that fail to safeguard students?

• Please list what data points will be collected on Vermont public school students and shared with “contractors, consultants and volunteers.”

• Please provide the names of contractors, consultants and volunteers who conducted such research over the last two years.

28. Can Vermont parents and students “opt out” of the collection and storage of personal information in education databases associated with CCSS? If so, what is the process? If not, why not?

Thank you for taking the time to consider these questions. I believe every Vermonter has a huge stake in your answers.

Reference

Turning Down PTA Donations

August 14, 2013 Oak Norton 15 Comments

Someone send us this letter below to send back to the PTA when they ask for donations. It’s a good template so we’re publishing it. Someone else emailed us concerned that the local PTA’s are doing a lot of good in the schools in spite of national and state leaders pushing them to endorse Common Core. While this may be true, their dues are supporting the national agenda. This person recommends that everyone show up at PTA meetings to help explain to people what Common Core is all about and help educate these parent volunteers. She said that as long as you don’t join PTA, donations that are given after membership drives stay local. I do not know about this myself, so I’m just posting it as a possibility. The best thing would be to check if your school has a PTO (most charter schools do, most district schools do not). A PTO is 100% local so all funds stay at the school. If you have a PTA at your school and can disband it and form a PTO, that’s a great objective.

Dear PTA,

This year I will be withholding my annual PTA donation. I am concerned about the financially indebted relationship that has developed between PTA and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Gates’ push for the academically experimental Common Core. I refer to the following announcement, found on the Gates Foundation website:

***

National PTA to Mobilize Parents for Common Core Standards – Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

Receives $1 million grant from Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to engage parents in four states.

CHICAGO — – National PTA is positioning itself as a key player at the front line of education reform. The association today announced a new three-year effort to mobilize parents to advance key education priorities, beginning with common core state standards—a voluntary, state-led, internationally benchmarked set of high academic standards in English language arts and mathematics. A $1 million grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation will help support the effort.

***

I would support the formation of a local PTO where all monies collected from parents would go to the school, rather than being sent to the national group.

Sincerely,

Reference

APP’s Response to Florida Leaders

July 29, 2013 Oak Norton Leave a comment

Jane Robbins at the American Principle’s Project put together a great resource for Florida’s leaders (and the rest of us) correcting the misinformation being spread by the US Department of Education about Common Core.

For example, the Utah state office of education likes to parrot the talking point that Common Core was internationally benchmarked (false) and since Utah chose the “integrated” math version of Common Core, we are doing what the top Asian nations are doing so we will have similar results. Not only are we NOT doing what the Asian nations are doing, our efforts to push constructivist math are going to do great harm to our students. This is part of Ms. Robbin’s article:

Despite the Common Core proponents’ claim that this mandate promotes “critical thinking,” this is nothing but the same recycled “new math” that was tried and abandoned decades ago. Ignoring this history of failure, Common Core tries again to impose the notion that students must spend less time working math problems and more time explaining the underlying concepts of what they are doing.
Does the research support the argument that students are more successful with math using this technique? To the contrary – research concerning top-performing countries shows that students do better in math if they are required to work math problems (lots of them), not merely explain math problems. A report by the American Educational Research Association examined the math standards of high-achieving countries, Finland, Japan, and Singapore, and discovered very little alignment to Common Core. All three of these countries “place a much greater emphasis on ‘perform procedures’ than found in the U.S. Common Core standards.” In fact, “[f]or each country, approximately 75% of the content involves ‘perform procedures,’ whereas in the Common Core standards, the percentage for procedures is 38%.” If the Common Core math drafters want U.S. students to compete with students from these countries, perhaps imposing standards with only half the math-performance requirements is not the best way to go about it.

Please check out the whole article here:

http://americanprinciplesproject.org/preserve-innocence/2013/our-response-to-florida-republican-leaders-defense-of-common-core/

Reference

What do the CC math authors say about them?

July 20, 2013 Oak Norton 9 Comments

The following information is provided by Ze’ev Wurman.

********

The Common Core math standards were written by three people:
Bill McCallum: PhD in mathematics
Jason Zimba: PhD in mathematical physics
Phil Daro: Masters degree in English, with some involvement in elementary math but almost no knowledge of higher math
What do the math related writers say?
Bill McCallum, a key CCSSM author, said this at the 2010 joint AMS/MAA annual meeting:
“the overall standards would not be too high, certainly not in comparison other nations, including East Asia, where math education excels.”
In March 2010 Jason Zimba, another of the key CCSSM authors, testified in front of the Mass. Board of Ed and said:
“[Common Core’s] concept of college readiness is minimal and focuses on non-selective colleges.”
And just recently we’ve heard from Trevor Packer, Senior VP at the College Board and in charge of its AP program, speaking at the 2013 annual conference of School Superintendents Association (AASA) (video here) and indicating that the Common Core is less rigorous than what high schools routinely teach today and, consequently, the College Board is considering eliminating AP calculus.
“In particular, AP Calculus is in conflict with the Common Core, Packer said, and it lies outside the sequence of the Common Core because of the fear that it may unnecessarily rush students into advanced math classes for which they are not prepared.
The College Board suggests a solution to the problem. of AP Calculus. “If you’re worried about AP Calculus and fidelity to the Common Core, we recommend AP Statistics and AP Computer Science,” he told conference attendees.”

********

So, the two authors who are experts in math say the standards aren’t very high, and the AP college board says AP calculus is in conflict with Common Core and students won’t be prepared for it. It appears Common Core has put calculus on death row. How can the Utah state board and state office of education continue to maintain that Common Core standards are more rigorous than our A- rated 2007 math standards which got most students through algebra in 8th grade and allows most students to take calculus in 12th? Common Core gets most students to pre-calculus by 12th grade, leaving them to take calculus in college.

Reference

Rebuttal to USBE Presentation on Common Core

July 17, 2013 Oak Norton 4 Comments

Yesterday the Utah State Board of Education made a presentation to some Utah legislators entitled “Common Core and the Utah Education Transformation Plan”. A small group of concerned parents compiled these questions and facts in response to their slides.

Rebuttal to the USBE Common Core Presentation

Utahns Against Common Core

Category Archives: Reference

16 year old takes down Common Core

Common Core standards are just the tip of the iceberg

Parents Launch Executive Order to Stop Common Core and to Stop Student Data Mining

Lowering the Bar: Pioneer Institute Whitepaper

The Exodus, opting out of Common Core assessments and data collection

28 Questions about the Common Core

The Common Core State Standards

Assessments

Origin of the Common Core

Data collection

Turning Down PTA Donations

APP’s Response to Florida Leaders

What do the CC math authors say about them?

Rebuttal to USBE Presentation on Common Core

Protecting Our Children