Previous Comments


Comment by Oak (February 3, 2015 at 10:38 pm)
Rating:

comment #1

 


Comment by Oak (February 3, 2015 at 10:57 pm)
Rating:

comment #1

 


Comment by Oak (February 3, 2015 at 11:08 pm)
Rating:

Comment 2

 


Comment by Oak (February 4, 2015 at 7:58 pm)
Rating:

This is another comment.

 


Comment by Oak (February 4, 2015 at 7:59 pm)
Rating:

one more

 


Comment by Alyson Williams (February 5, 2015 at 6:16 am)
Rating: Strongly Oppose

David Coleman, chief architect of the Common Core State Standards is now at the helm of the College Board (administrator of AP) and is busy revising AP courses to much criticism. The most controversial is AP US History which was formally condemned by the Republican National Committee: http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/curriculum/2014/08/college_board_statement_on_ap.html

“The new framework ‘reflects a radically revisionist view of American history that emphasizes negative aspects of our nation’s history while omitting or minimizing positive aspects,’ said a resolution adopted by the RNC…”

While parents in Utah are being told that this is only a framework and teachers can choose what to emphasize, technology providers will surely be true to the framework for test preparation and will likely have a greater influence on curriculum than local parents and teachers.

The effect this bill will have on education and curriculum can likely be summarized by one phrase on line 55 that says it all: “teacher assisted instruction.”

As technology providers create curriculum and formative assessments aligned to CCSS and AP standards (and we adopt 1-to-1) we will have adopted a de facto national curriculum.

It’s exactly what Bill Gates predicted — standards and frameworks allow curriculum to align through the technology providers who now have “a large uniform customer base.”

Bill Gates at the National Conference of State Legislatures: http://youtu.be/323WQrPHslg

This part of the bill also indicates that a lot of data on the student will be collected by the software, and will be used to profile the student and advising by data rather than personal volition or interest:

66 (ii) helps the student and the student’s academic adviser to select appropriate courses
67 and support services so the student has a successful experience in college.

 


Comment by Morgan Olsen (February 19, 2015 at 1:07 pm)
Rating: Strongly Oppose

o A tax increase from 5% to 5.5% means a 10% increase in taxes. A huge amount of money to fund two education programs. Such a huge influx of money will tremendously increase State power and influence over districts, and dramatically change the way schools think about money.
o Requires 25% of the money be spent on digital devices, software, and infrastructure.
 Is this even necessary, wouldn’t schools put that much money towards technology anyways? Why not allow them to use if for textbooks if they want?
 I want proper legal protections put in place to protect my kids before the technology is.
o o 75% of the money is used to reinforce the current teacher accountability program, this provides a precedent of attaching monetary strings for district compliance in these programs. Get them hooked on the money, then change the rules of the game. I would rather pay my taxes directly to the district and have more local control than run it through the state or federal governments and have it come back with strings.

 


Comment by Morgan Olsen (February 19, 2015 at 1:10 pm)
Rating: Strongly Support

o This bill makes huge strides in protecting student data. While there are a few changes I would make, this bill offers more than I could have hoped for with a single bill, and so I fully support it.

This bill
 gives ownership of personally identifiable information to the student.
 Allows schools to share data but severely limits the data education entities are allowed to collect and gives opt-out options to students for a significant amount of the data– so schools can only share so much.
 Gives a strong legal framework with which to close loopholes – such as teacher collected data and data collected directly by third-parties, and data elements not specifically mentioned.
 Prohibits collection of certain unethical student data elements.
 Establishes $25k civil penalty for violations.
 Limits what a third party entity can do with data it receives
 Requires the Board to make public their data dictionary and data elements.

 


Comment by Morgan Olsen (February 19, 2015 at 1:21 pm)
Rating: Oppose

o Uses state money to fund curriculum. The State’s job is to provide standards, not curriculum. State provided curriculum goes against the principle of Local Control.
o Such systems deny parents the ability to opt their child out, and provide third party contractors with the immense amounts of personal data, political and religious ideologies, and personal experiences children write about in school essays.

 


Comment by Morgan Olsen (February 19, 2015 at 1:24 pm)
Rating: Strongly Oppose

o AP exams are given by a third-party company, The College Board, therefore the seemingly best provider of test preparation material is from the company itself, because they know what is going to be on a test. If The College Board gets both contracts it creates a monopoly and a conflict of interest to the tune of $500,000. The College Board needs to be specifically prohibited from being a provider.
o An example of the State and third-party company taking over curriculum choices violating the principle of local control.

 


Comment by Morgan Olsen (February 19, 2015 at 1:25 pm)
Rating: Neutral/Undecided

• Entire change:
(4) (a) (i) A school district shall allocate a portion of school district revenues for each resident student of the school district who is enrolled in a charter school on October 1 equal to 25% of the [lesser of: (A)] district per pupil local revenues[; or]. [(B) charter school students’ average local revenues.]

 


Comment by Morgan Olsen (February 19, 2015 at 1:35 pm)
Rating: Oppose

o I’m concerned this is part of the movement to have a high turn-around with teachers –educate them over 6 weeks and then discard them after two years. A process like this could initiate increased turn around amongst the administrative staff as there would be a larger (and likely cheaper) pool of applicants to choose from. Yet this pool of unexperienced staff would be too green to fully understand the ethical differences between the private workforce and a public school. An increased turn-around in administrative staff means less support for Stop CC teachers. However, I’m open to other thoughts on the subject.

 


Comment by Morgan Olsen (February 19, 2015 at 1:38 pm)
Rating: Oppose

o I’m concerned not all schools are “early college” schools. It’s almost like we are turning public schools (whose original intent was to provide a baseline of knowledge to society.) into specialized trade schools. The underlying purpose of public schooling changes with this law.

 


Comment by Morgan Olsen (February 19, 2015 at 2:57 pm)
Rating: Strongly Oppose

State created curriculum violates the principle of local control.

 


Comment by Morgan Olsen (February 19, 2015 at 3:00 pm)
Rating: Oppose

o 94 (4) Subject to Subsection (5), an LEA may contract with a provider to provide dropout recovery services. Wouldn’t this make it profitable for the provider to encourage children to drop out and then come back so they can provide the dropout service?

 


Comment by Brad Caldwell (February 19, 2015 at 3:46 pm)
Rating: Strongly Oppose

partisan politics have no place in public education.

 


Comment by Tiffany Hess (February 19, 2015 at 10:42 pm)
Rating: Strongly Support

Returns power to the district from the state. Allows districts to hire who they think will best serve their needs. This is a great local control bill.

 


Comment by Randall Lund (February 25, 2015 at 5:56 pm)
Rating: Strongly Support

“Politics has no place in public education,” says the party with a stranglehold on educational policy. Politics is how like minded people get together to affect public policy. The most important public policy we make is in education, where our children’s minds are shaped, where we spend the most money, where tomorrow’s culture is made.

 


Comment by Jaime (March 3, 2015 at 12:10 pm)
Rating: Strongly Oppose

You say tax credit, the public will then call on regulation. ‘If you get a tax credit, I should too, what are you doing in your homeschool? , are you even qualified?’
I say no thanks. Is rather not be placed under the microscope