rebuttal to the usbe common core presentation
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/28/2019 Rebuttal to the USBE Common Core Presentation
1/31
Common Core Standards are just one aspect of a much larger education reform agenda[1]. The State Fiscal Stabilization
Fund[2], Race to the Top grant[3], Race to the Top for Assessments[4], and No Child Left Behind Waiver all share thesame 4 reform tenets. Namely, common standards and assessments, accountability (teacher/principal evaluations-school
grading), longitudinal and interoperable data systems, and turning around lowest performing schools.[5][1] http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/education/k-12
[2] http://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/leg/recovery/factsheet/stabilization-fund.html
[3] http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/executive-summary.pdf -page 2
[4] http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop-assessment/executive-summary-042010.pdf - page 5 & 6
[5] http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/education/k-12
Slide-by-slide
Response to Utah State Board of EducationCommon Core Presentation
by Utahns Against Common Core
www.utahnsagainstcommoncore.com
-
7/28/2019 Rebuttal to the USBE Common Core Presentation
2/31
These gures are from a study done by the Georgetown
Center for Education and the Workforce which is largely
funded by the Lumina Foundation (Lumina Foundation
is a conversion foundation created in mid-2000 as USA
Group, Inc., the nations largest private guarantor and
administrator of education loans) and the Bill & MelindaGates Foundation (called partners.)
Similar gures have been prepared for every state.
Without disputing the importance of higher education,
it seems wise to question the inuence of a few, well-
funded and ideaologically-aligned reformers on the
policy direction for public education of nearly every statein the nation.
The U.S. has supposedly been a nation at risk due to
the state of education for decades.
The Common Core standards have never been pilot
tested and have no guarantee of being any more effective
than the failed, federally-backed reforms of the past that
have served to grow bureaucracy, but not achievement.
Question:Does the perceived urgency ofthese reforms justify circumventing processes of
responsible and representative governance like
cost analysis and well-publicized public hearings?
-
7/28/2019 Rebuttal to the USBE Common Core Presentation
3/31
There is a place for judicious use
of testing, but many are concerned
that results of so called high-
stakes and standardized test
scores and state rankings are beingmisapplied to public policy... i.e.
tying teacher pay to test scores which
incentivizes teaching to the test, and
disincentivizes teachers to welcome
students who dont t testing norms
in their classrooms. Or, a trend
observed in other states where policy,
and not parents or students, dictates
participation in standardized testing
and tracking (children with special
needs, homeschoolers, opt-outs.)
Campbells Law:
The more any quantitative social indicator is used for social decision-making, the more subject it will be
to corruption pressures and the more apt it will be to distort and corrupt the social processes it is intended
to monitor.
-
7/28/2019 Rebuttal to the USBE Common Core Presentation
4/31
(Utah Code Title 62A Chapter 4a Section 201)
(1) (a) Under both the United States Constitution and the constitution of this state, a parent
possesses a fundamental liberty interest in the care, custody, and management of the parents
children.(d) The state recognizes that:
(i) a parent has the right, obligation, responsibility, and authority to raise, manage, train, edu-
cate, provide for, and reasonably discipline the parents children; and
(ii) the states 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 exer-
cise primary control over the care, supervision, upbringing, and education of their children.
Question:How does theschool board notify, inviteor engage Utah parents
regarding major policy
decisions?
-
7/28/2019 Rebuttal to the USBE Common Core Presentation
5/31
Federal
Grants
National GovernorsAssociation**
Council of Chief State
School Ofcers**
input diluted
with that of other
states
Private Businesses
and foundations
with no lobbying restrictions
Governor has no constitutionalauthority to set standards
X
Question: What part of the Utah Constitution or statute authorizes this?
** Not constitutional representative bodies.
-
7/28/2019 Rebuttal to the USBE Common Core Presentation
6/31
Questions:How would the USBE rate their effectiveness in facilitating citizen participation in the Common Core adoption process?
A few states have paused their Common Core implementation to do an independent cost analysis. Wouldnt this be wise
in terms ofeconomic prosperity?
Does calling parents who dont agree with policy decisions Common Core Crazies or C3s in teacher training
events represent the USBEs commitment to strong social and community values?
How does the Common Core State Standards Initiative demonstrate a commitment to constitutional government?
(See owchart on previous page.)
-
7/28/2019 Rebuttal to the USBE Common Core Presentation
7/31
The rst three bullet points are goals, not strategies.
There is no evidence that Common Core, or standards in general, improve graduation rates or increase the attainment of
postsecondary degrees.
The last two bullet points are ways to measure progress toward a goal or enforce a curriculum.
So..... the academic achievement (and consequently the economic prosperity as we are led to believe) of Utah depends
on a set of nationally homogenous and untested academic standards?
-
7/28/2019 Rebuttal to the USBE Common Core Presentation
8/31
Question: Isnt a more homogenous market for text publishers likelyto further narrow text book choices in a market that was already dominated
by the largest states?
-
7/28/2019 Rebuttal to the USBE Common Core Presentation
9/31
ACT, and the College Board (SAT) helped write the standards
along with Achieve and Americas Choice which are closely
afliated with the largest educational materials/services
company Pearson. Student Achievement Partners were hired as
consultants and are generally credited as the chief architects of
the CCSS with the others giving input.
The members of the mathematics Work Group are:
Sara Clough, Director, Elementary and Secondary School Programs, Development,Education Division, ACT, Inc.
Phil Daro, Senior Fellow, Americas Choice
Susan K. Eddins, Educational Consultant, Illinois Mathematics and Science Academy(Retired)
Kaye Forgione, Senior Associate and Team Leader for Mathematics, Achieve
John Kraman, Associate Director, Research,Achieve
Marci Ladd, Mathematics Consultant, The College Board & Senior Manager and
Mathematics Content Lead, Academic Benchmarks
William McCallum, University Distinguished Professor and Head, Department ofMathematics, The University of Arizona &Mathematics Consultant, Achieve
Sherri Miller, Assistant Vice President, Educational Planning and Assessment System
(EPAS) Development, Education Division, ACT, Inc.
Ken Mullen, Senior Program Development AssociateMathematics, Elementary and
Secondary School Programs, Development, Education Division, ACT, Inc.
Robin OCallaghan, Senior Director, Mathematics, Research and Development, The
College Board
Andrew Schwartz, Assessment Manager, Research and Development, The College
Board
Laura McGiffert Slover, Vice President, Content and Policy Research, Achieve
Douglas Sovde, Senior Associate, Mathematics, Achieve Natasha Vasavada, Senior Director, Standards and Curriculum Alignment Services,Research and Development, The College Board
Jason Zimba, Faculty Member, Physics, Mathematics, and the Center for the Ad-
vancement of Public Action, Bennington College and Cofounder, Student Achievement
Partners
Members of the English-language Arts Work Group are:
Sara Clough, Director, Elementary and Secondary School Programs, Development,
Education Division, ACT, Inc.
David Coleman, Founder, Student Achievement Partners
Sally Hampton, Senior Fellow for Literacy, Americas Choice
Joel Harris, Director, English Language Arts Curriculum and Standards, Research andDevelopment, The College Board
Beth Hart, Senior Assessment Specialist, R&D, The College Board John Kraman, Associate Director, Research, Achieve
Laura McGiffert Slover, Vice President, Content and Policy Research, Achieve
Nina Metzner, Senior Test Development AssociateLanguage Arts, Elementary and
Secondary School Programs, Development, Education Division, ACT, Inc.
Sherri Miller, Assistant Vice President, Educational Planning and Assessment System(EPAS) Development, Education Division, ACT, Inc.
Sandy Murphy, Professor Emeritus, University of California Davis
Jim Patterson, Senior Program Development AssociateLanguage Arts, Elementaryand Secondary School Programs, Development, Education Division, ACT, Inc.
Sue Pimentel, Co-Founder, StandardsWork; English Language Arts Consultant,
Achieve
Natasha Vasavada, Senior Director, Standards and Curriculum Alignment Services,Research and Development, The College Board
Martha Vockley, Principal and Founder, VockleyLang, LLC
http://www.nga.org/cms/home/news-room/news-releases/page_2009/col2-content/main-
content-list/title_common-core-state-standards-development-work-group-and-feedback-
group-announced.html
-
7/28/2019 Rebuttal to the USBE Common Core Presentation
10/31
When I reviewed that large and growing body of knowledge offered
by the NGA, I found that it was not large, and in fact built mostly on one
report, Benchmarking for Success, created by the NGA and the CCSSO, the
same groups that created these standards; Hardly independent research. The
Benchmarking report has over 135 end notes, some of which are repetitive
references. Only four of the cited pieces of evidence could be considered
empirical studies related directly to the topic of national standards and
student achievement. The remaining citations were newspaper stories,
armchair magazine articles, op-ed pieces, book chapters, notes from
telephone interviews, and several tangential studies.
--Christopher Tienken, Ed.D.Common Core State Standards: An Example of Data-less Decision Making
AASA Journal of Scholarship and Practice,
Vol. 7, No. 4 Winter 2011
Common Core is the product of an extragovernmental cartel of state leaders
(aka state-led) and special interests who had no constitutional commission to
affect nationwide education policy in the way that they did.
CCSSI has never indicated the name of a country with which we are
benchmarked. It lists no references showing that. All it says, over and over
again, is that CCs standards were informed by or CCSSI consulted with
the X, Y, and Z. Neither of those phrases means benchmarked.
-
7/28/2019 Rebuttal to the USBE Common Core Presentation
11/31
The NGA, CCSSO and Achieve all rely on federal grants for a signicant portion of their funding.
What is the danger of a federally controlled education system that makes state-led sound better?
Those who oppose federal control typically oppose a concentration of power that would dictate one
set of educational ideals for everyone, to the exclusion of others.
Nationally aligned standards create a national market for curriculum that favors the biggest
publishers and content providers which could translate into fewer choices.
Accelerating the development of the State Longitudinal Databases (SLDS) was one of the
four assurances states had to make, along with adopting common standards and assessments,
to receive stimulus funds. Having common standards across states improves the statistical
comparability of student data as collected in the SLDS.
Just as states databases were expanding, the US Department of Ed altered the FERPA privacy law
to loosen restrictions on data sharing and to weaken parental consent requirements. (EPIC v. The
U.S. Department of Education) It is not part of the Common Core, but still a key concern among
those discussing the interconnected reforms the educational transformation as the USBE calls
it spurred by the stimulus.
Race to the Top was one of the programs funded by the stimulus and according to audio of state
school board meetings was a driving factor behind Utahs initial adoption of the Common Core
Standards. Utah applied to both rounds of the grant competition, but in the end was not awarded
funds.
And one thing we all agreed on when we were there, because I hear what youre saying Kim, is
that we do not want to call them national standards. Now I know thats, its word smithing, but
the, this is an effort of the states, not the federal government- not the federal government. And we
are making sure that is very clearly delineated.--Brenda Hales, May 1, 2009 State Board Meeting @12:50
-
7/28/2019 Rebuttal to the USBE Common Core Presentation
12/31
Question: Our previous Math standards were rated A-and the Common Core standards were rated as A-
How is that a signicant upgrade?
Utahs standards are briey stated and usually clear, making them easier to read and follow than Common Core. In addition, the high school content
is organized so that standards addressing specic topics, such as quadratic functions, are grouped together in a mathematically coherent way. The
organization of the Common Core is more difcult to navigate, in part because standards dealing with related topics sometimes appear separately
rather than together.
--Fordhams conclusion after comparing Utahs previous math standards to Common Corehttp://edexcellencemedia.net/publications/2010/201007_state_education_standards_common_standards/Utah.pdf
-
7/28/2019 Rebuttal to the USBE Common Core Presentation
13/31
All of the standards writing and discussions were sealed by condentiality agreements, and held in private. While Linn*says six states sent intensive teacher and staff feedback, committee members werent sure what effect their advice had, said Mark
Bauerlein, an Emory University professor who sat on a feedback committee.
I have no idea how much inuence committee members had on nal product. Some of the things I advised made their way intothe standards. Some of them didnt. Im not sure why or how, he said. He said those who would know were the standards lead
writers: David Coleman and Susan Pimentel in English, and Jason Zimba, Phil Daro, and William McCallum in math.
When government agencies solicit public comments on proposed policies, standard procedure is for the agency to publish all
comments submitted and a response. This didnt happen with Common Core.
http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2013/06/07/ve-people-wrote-state-led-common-core
* Dane Linn, NGA education director at the time
-
7/28/2019 Rebuttal to the USBE Common Core Presentation
14/31
Question: Are any of the professionals listed hererecipients of grants to fund the creation of Common Core
aligned materials? Do any of them work with the USOE and if
so, in what capacity?
-
7/28/2019 Rebuttal to the USBE Common Core Presentation
15/31
Dr. Stotsky and Dr. Milgram were two
of ve members of the CCSS validation
committee who refused to sign off on
the standards. Hundreds of other experts
have also expressed criticisms, but
because Stotsky and Milgram took part
in the CCSS process, these are two of the
most often cited.
Both Dr. Milgram and Dr. Wu were involved
with the 2007 Utah math standards. Dr. Milgram
provided the analysis of our prior D rated
standards which compelled the creation of new
A- rated standards. Dr. Wu was chosen as the
external reviewer to ensure the 2007 standards
were clear, coherent, and comprehensive. Dr. Wumade several important recommendations. The
USOE implemented none of them, but in this case
they elevate this tepid statement about CCSS to
support their claim that CCSS is better than our
previous standards.
Utah had some of the best math standards in the
country prior to Common Core and they may
have been even better had they implemented Dr.
Wus suggestions.
Now Drs. Wu and Milgram disagree on points of
Common Core which highlights the fact that there
is widespread disagreement on the standards. The
validation committee never met to discuss the
nal version of the standards and never voted on
the draft they received. They were asked to sign a
prepared statement.
Dr. Stotsky was a Senior Associate Commissioner for the
Massachusetts Department of Education and led the revising state
standards writing board from 1999-2003. She was on a NAEP
committee in 2003-2004 (her standards came before her association
with NAEP.) Her 14-page curriculum vitae is accessible at the
University of Arkansas website where it is clear that these positions are
just two of many distinctions indicative of someone whose expertise is
widely sought and respected.
-
7/28/2019 Rebuttal to the USBE Common Core Presentation
16/31
In 2007 the Gates & Broad Foundations give $60 million to create a sweeping public awareness and action campaign
that will mobilize the public and presidential candidates around solutions for the countrys education crisis 1
Two former staff of Gates Foundation were hired by Obamas U.S. Education Department and were granted waivers by
the Administration from its revolving-door policy limiting involvement with former employers 2
14 out of the 16 Race to the Top grant recipients were given nancial aid from Gates Foundation to pay consultants who
helped prepare their RttT applications 3
Between January 2008 and November 2010, the Gates Foundation had contributed more than $35-million to the Council
of Chief School Ofcers and the National Governors Association Center 4
In February 2008 Gates gave $12.6-million to Achieve 5
$3 Million to Thomas B. Fordham Institute to review Common Core 6
$1 million to PTA to organize parent endorsement of Common Core 7
$3 million to ASCD (professional development for educators) to promote Common Core with educators 8
$20 Million in Grants for projects aligned with Common Core 9
$3 Million to Pearson for digital instruction resources for Common Core 10
ALEC shelves anti-Common Core model legislation after receiving $376,635 grant from the Gates Foundaton 11
(See last page for references.)
As a private entity that doesnt answer to voters, Gates can back initiatives that are politically dicey for the Obama Administration, such as
uniform standards, says Jack Jennings, director of the Center on Education Policy. In the past, states rights advocates have blocked federal
efforts for a national curriculum. Gates was able to do something the federal government couldnt do, Jennings says.
the [Gates] foundations agenda is very much aligned with the Obama Administration agenda. We partner with them on a whole host of
things.
-- Peter Cunningham, spokesman for Secretary Arne Duncan
BusinessWeek Cover Story July 2010http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_30/b4188058281758.htm#p4
It is not unfair to say that the Gates Foundations agenda has
become the countrys agenda in education, said Michael Petrilli,vice president for national programs and policy at the Thomas B.
Fordham Institute in Washington, D.C.Puget Sound Business Journal
http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/stories/2009/05/18/story2.html?page=all
-
7/28/2019 Rebuttal to the USBE Common Core Presentation
17/31
CA and MA did have higher standards.
This fact is not changed just because the
respective school boards decided to switch
to Common Core.
How did Fordham actually rank them?
Massachusetts ELA A-
Common Core ELA B+
Massachusettss existing standards are
clearer, more thorough, and easier to read
than the Common Core standards.
Californias Math Standards A
Common Core Math A-
Californias standards are exceptionally
clear and well presented, and indeed
represent a model for mathematically
sound writing. They are further supported
by excellent peripheral material, including
the Framework that provides clear and
detailed guidance on the standards. Taken
together, these enhancements make the
standards easier to read and follow thanCommon Core.
Californias standards could well serve
as a model for internationally competitive
national standards.
http://www.edexcellence.net/publications/the-
state-of-state-of-standards-and-the-common-core-
in-2010.html
-
7/28/2019 Rebuttal to the USBE Common Core Presentation
18/31
Curriculum standards dont tell teachers how to teach in the
same way that a high jump bar doesnt tell a jumper how to
jump. You could theoretically jump over a high jump bar in
whatever way you would like; but because of how the jump is
structured there is a clear advantage to doing the old Fosbury
Flop.
It is clear from documents on the Common Core website and
from the discourse throughout the country that these new
standards encourage constructivist teaching practices.
James Shuls
Education Polity Analyst, Show-Me Institute,
Ph.D Education Policy
former 1st and 5th grade teacherhttp://jaypgreene.com/2013/03/21/constructive-criticism-for-common-
core-constructivism-deniers/
The Secondary Math 1 book created by the USOE seems
to be a good example of how constructivist teaching practices
are emphasized as Mr. Shuls suggests above.
I believe the Common Core marks the cessation of educational standards improvement in the United States. No state has
any reason left to aspire for rst-rate standards, as all states will be judged by the same mediocre national benchmark...-- Zeev Wurman,
Chief Software Architect MonolithIC, former policy advisor to U.S. Department of Ed, holds 7 patents
http://educationnext.org/the-common-core-math-standards/
-
7/28/2019 Rebuttal to the USBE Common Core Presentation
19/31
http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/introduction/key-design-consideration
The 70/30 split favoring informational text over classic literature bythe 12th grade is an inappropriate interpretation of the NAEP testing
framework (see chart below) applied backward to standards, and has
no basis in practice for increasing college-ready literacy.
In other words, this is essentially an experiment being implemented
in 47 states at the same time. As the USOE explained:
The effect of implementing standards cannot be researched before
they have been implemented. They must be implemented rst beforewe can conduct research on their effectiveness.
-- Complete Resource Guide on Utahs Core Standardshttp://www.schools.utah.gov/core/Utah-Core-Standards/
CommonCoreResourceGuide.aspx (page 24)
This is a grand experiment not only for standards but for policy. The
U.S. has never had uniform standards across states. Because it affects
the majoirity of students nationwide, this is a more signicant shift
than a routine review of standards in any single state and therefore
worthy of greater scrutiny.
It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single
courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory;
and try novel social and economic experiments
without risk to the rest of the country.
--Justice Louis C. Brandeis
-
7/28/2019 Rebuttal to the USBE Common Core Presentation
20/31
Federal Register, denitions for ARRA (stimulus) Funds(July 29, 2009 p. 8)
Common set of K12 standards means a set of content standards
that dene what students must know and be able to do, and that areidentical across all States in a consortium. Notwithstanding
this, a State may supplement the common standards with additional
standards, provided that the additional standards do not exceed
15 percent of the States total standards for that content area.
ESEA Flexibility Waiver DenitionsPage 18 of Utahs Flexibility Waiver* refers to career and college-
ready standards as dened by part (1) of the USDOE denitions.The referenced part (1) leads to the following description:
Standards that are common to a signicant number of Statesmeans standards that are substantially identical across all States in a
consortium that includes a signicant number of States. A State maysupplement such standards with additional standards, provided that
the additional standards do not exceed 15 percent of the Statestotal standards for a content area.
ESEA Flexibility Waiver Policy Doc (page 6, parts 1 & 6)
http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/esea-exibility/index.html
Utah State School Board Minutes (Attachment 4 of UT Waiver):
To adopt the Common Core Standards, a state agrees to accept all
of the standards as they are written. Each participating state is to use
the Common Core Standards as a framework for their own Reading/
Language Arts and Mathematics core curriculum. A state may add
up to 15% more standards.http://www.schools.utah.gov/board/Minutes/2010/08-06-10.aspx
CCSSI Final Implementation Guide (page 22)
While states will not be considered to have adopted the common
core if any individual standard is left out, states are allowed to
augment the standards with an additional 15% of content that a
state feels is imperative. . A literal interpretation by states of the
15% guideline (that is 15% added at every grade level and in each
subject) would undermine the very reason the states developed the
Common Core State Standards in the rst place.http://www.achieve.org/les/FINAL-CCSSImplementationGuide.pdf
The above paragraph is from the copyright page of the CCSSI Public License.
It says copy, distribute and display. It does NOT say anything about
customization. http://www.corestandards.org/public-license
On the same page it also says: NGA Center/CCSSO shall be acknowledged
as the sole owners and developers of the Common Core State Standards, and
no claims to the contrary shall be made.
Question: If this was a state-led process by publicly-funded state agents,how do two private trade organizations own the copyright?
* http://www2.ed.gov/policy/eseaex/ut.pdf
-
7/28/2019 Rebuttal to the USBE Common Core Presentation
21/31
May 1, 2009Utah State School Board Discusses Memorandum of Agreement
The reason why this has become more on the front burner is
because the NGA and CCSSO have received some funding to go
ahead and start developing Common Core.
Theyre all willing to do this for free but only if we sign on byMonday. No pressure there.
Now when I took a look at background material, the Achieve
material, theres not a huge amount of difference between our
standards and what they are going to use as a base anyway. And Im
going to estimate that about 92% of our standards are the same as
those standards right now. So it doesnt concern me that it will be so
wildly out of line that we couldnt live with it.
June 4, 2009Board encouraged to adopt CC standards on rst reading
@19:34
Brenda Hales: We know that the Board hasnt had time to look
so if the Board adopts [the Common Core State Standards] on rst
reading that gives you time the next month and a half to review it for
second and third in August.
Board Chair: Laurel, our expectation then is to have the Board
vote for it on rst reading? Right?Laurel: On rst reading and then well have second...
Board Chair: Does everyone understand that? So even though
the committee approved it on rst reading, its coming to you on rst
reading and then well do second and third reading in August. Is that
clear as mud?
Larry Shumway: The reason for that is there is sort of a strategic
reasons as we may nd ourselves in an interview relative to our Race
to the Top application.
UT State School Board Meeting Audio
-
7/28/2019 Rebuttal to the USBE Common Core Presentation
22/31
February 13, 2009
Reinvestment & Recovery Act Passed with
$100 Billion for Educationhttp://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/leg/recovery/implementation.html
April 3, 2009
Theres a great momentum behind NATIONAL common standards.
I would say its the expectation of the Secretary [Arne Duncan] that
we move into that environment in the next two or three years.-Audio from UT State School Board Meeting
The Utah State Board of Education is accepting
written comments about the Utah Core Standards from
Monday, April 23 at 8 a.m. to Friday, April 27 2012 at 5 p.m.https://www.facebook.com/events/408552669169845/
June 2, 2010
Final version of the Common Core Standards released
June 4, 2010
Board encouraged to adopt CC standards on rst reading for RttT process
Wasnt this the real
public comment periodthat was publicized to
citizens, 22 months
after the CCSS were
adopted?
Isnt that why this
due process
disclaimer is here?
-
7/28/2019 Rebuttal to the USBE Common Core Presentation
23/31
April 29, 2009
House Education and Labor Committee hearingAs reported online by Alyson Klein at Education Week
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2009/04/29/31standards.h28.html
T. Kenneth James, the commissioner ofeducation in Arkansas and the president of the Council
of Chief State School Ofcers, agreed with Rep.McKeon that state leaders are likely to be much
more wary about a movement toward common
standards, if it appears to come with a federalmandate attached.
But he said Congress and the U.S. Department
of Education should focus on using the bully pulpitto help bolster the movement and consider providing
federal resources, particularly for assessments. I
think it can be done without the perception that the
federal government is driving the train, Mr. Jamessaid.
Road to a National CurriculumRobert S. Eitel
former Deputy General Counsel of the U.S. Dept of Ed
Kent D. Talbert
former General Counsel of the U.S. Dept of Ed
...the Department is evading these prohibitions
and using proxies to cement national standards andassessments. (p.5)The Department has simply paid others to do that
which it is forbidden to do. (p.18)
I hate to be so blunt, but the U.S. Department of Education is violating three
federal laws, Stergios said. And the fact is that state and local ofcials whoare part of the national standards and assessment efforts are compliant in
the breaking of these federal laws.
Pioneer Institute Executive Director Jim Stergioshttp://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2012/03/03/report-common-core-poses-legal-
questionsGeneral Education Provisions Act
Department of Education Organization Act
Elementary and Secondary Education Act
-
7/28/2019 Rebuttal to the USBE Common Core Presentation
24/31
The state is outsourcing a core
state function to an outside
organization that is then
outsourcing to other organizations,
and you cant have the parental
and legislator input you normally
should.
--Bill Allison
editorial director of the Sunlight Foundation
(a government transparency watchdog)http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2013/01/03/tax-
sponsored-common-core-meetings-closed-public
Question:How is thedelegation of a core function
to the Board of Regents
unconstitutional but delegationto the NGA and CCSSO (D.C.
based trade organizations) not
unconstitutional?
-
7/28/2019 Rebuttal to the USBE Common Core Presentation
25/31
There are Common Core State Standards and Common
Core Assessments... both part of the rst of four assurancesthat the U.S. Department of Education has asked states to
make through the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund, Race to
the Top programs, and ESEA Flexibility Waivers.
For example:
Under the Race to the Top guidelines, states seeking funds
will be pressed to implement four core, interconnected
reforms. We sometimes call them the four assurances, and
those assurances are what we are going to be looking for
from states, districts, and their local partners in reform.
... Thats why we are looking for Race to the Top states
to adopt common, internationally-benchmarked K-12
standards that truly prepare students for college and careers.To speed this process, the Race to the Top program is
going to set aside $350 million to competitively fund thedevelopment of rigorous, common state assessments.
-- Secretary of Education Arne Duncan
announcing the Race to the Tophttp://www2.ed.gov/news/speeches/2009/07/07242009.html
That $350 Million was awarded to two testing consortia,
the SBAC and PARCC. The U.S. Department of Edsubsequently established a federal review panel for these
tests.http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/curriculum/2013/04/common_
assessment_groups_to_undergo_new_federal_review_process.html
With the approval of the Utah State School Board,
Governor Herbert and Superintendent Shumway initally
signed on to the federally-funded SBAC testing consortium,
but following well-founded criticisms from Utah citizens
the School Board Utah later withdrew.
-
7/28/2019 Rebuttal to the USBE Common Core Presentation
26/31
AIR is also one of the worlds largest behavioral and
social science research organizations.
AIR is the ofcial assessment partner of the
SBAC, the tesing consortium from which Utah has
withdrawn.
AIR is a member of the Clinton Global Initiative
with the goal to help our world move beyond the
current state of globalization to a more integrated
global community of shared benets, responsibilities,
and values.- See more at: http://www.air.org/expertise/
index/?fa=view&tid=243#sthash.ozT4YnDU.dpuf
AIR uses advanced statistical methods to get the
most information from the data.
- See more at: http://www.air.org/focus-area/educational-assess
ment/?id=17#sthash.9NA1fndk.dpuf
Utah law used to provide for parents to have access to review all
curriculum and assessments. This is not possible with computer
adaptive tests.
By what criteria would this panel judge test questions?
Dr. Menlove has admitted to Alpine School District Board Member
Brian Halladay that those 15 parents may have to review 100,000
questions in a 6 week period. Is that physically possible?
-
7/28/2019 Rebuttal to the USBE Common Core Presentation
27/31
Stabilization Fund Description: The U.S. Department of Education will award governors approximately $48.6 billion by formula underthe SFSF [State Fiscal Stabilization Fund] program in exchange for a commitment to advance essential education reforms to benet students
from early learning through post-secondary education, including: college and career-ready standards and high-quality, valid and reliable
assessments for all students; development and use of pre-K through post-secondary and career data systems; increasing teacher effectiveness
and ensuring an equitable distribution of qualied teachers; and turning around the lowest-performing schools.http://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/leg/recovery/factsheet/stabilization-fund.html
It has been recommended that the forthcoming reauthorization of No Child Left Behind support the ability of state longitudinal data systems
to link appropriate and pertinent information across the P-20 education pipeline and across state agencies.http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/action-issues/federal-policy/
Expanded student data collection was one of the four assurances, along with adopting common standards, required of States to receive State
Fiscal Stabilization Funds, participate in the Race to the Top grant competition, or apply for an ESEA exibility waiver. Utah had already been
working on this, but had to report its progress toward 10 essential elements to the federal government as a condition of funding.
-
7/28/2019 Rebuttal to the USBE Common Core Presentation
28/31
Fordham Center on Law and Information Policy
October 28, 2009
CHILDRENS EDUCATIONAL RECORDS AND PRIVACY:
A study of elementary and secondary school state reporting systems
Among state departments of education there has been a
growing trend to establish statewide longitudinal databases
of all K-12 children within a state in order to track students
progress and change over time. This trend is accompanied by
a movement to create uniform data collection systems so that
each states student data systems are interoperable with one
another. These two trends raised privacy concerns that we
examine in this study...we were concerned with the ease
with which individual interoperable state data systems
could potentially be combined to create a nationaldatabase of all K-12 children.
...We found that most states collected information in excess
of what is needed for the reporting requirements of the No
Child Left Behind Act and what appeared needed to evaluate
overall school progress.
http://law.fordham.edu/center-on-law-and-information-policy/14769.htm
Questions:What data is collected for a single studentin Utah between the SIS, the SLDS, UTREX, Utah Futures,ACT, SAGE etc. and where/how can a parent review all of this
information? Is there a way to completely opt out of any student-
level data collection/sharing (de-identied or not) that extends
beyond the childs primary school?
-
7/28/2019 Rebuttal to the USBE Common Core Presentation
29/31
We share this concern.
-
7/28/2019 Rebuttal to the USBE Common Core Presentation
30/31
We are not programming machines. We are teaching children. We
are not producing functionaries, factory-like. We are to be forming
the minds and hearts of men and women to be human beings,
honoring what is good and right and cherishing what is beautiful.
--Anthony Esolen,
professor of Renaissance English Literature
Providence College in Rhode Island
Will increased testing, tracking and standardization serve ourchildren well especially if the costs include parents feeling
increasingly marginalized, teachers motivated by test scoresrather than a love of their work, and less customization for localneeds?
The most controversial issues of the twenty-rst century will pertain to the ends and means of modifying human behavior and
who shall determine them. The rst educational question will not be what knowledge is of the most worth?
but what kinds of human beings do we wish to produce? -- John Goodlad
In other words, what is the purpose of education, and who gets to decide?
Some believe it should be highly tracked so that every child knows on every step of their educational trajectory what theyre going to do.
--US Education Secretary Arne Duncan
When combined with the statements of those leading education reform this job force goal seems to imply that the highest aim of education is
work. Historically, the purpose of American education was to nurture the development of self-governing citizens, with work being incidental to
that development. Our Founding Fathers and other great thinkers were who they were because they studied the great works, not work itself. This
nation has uniquely thrived according to the principle that a free market with good people works better than attempts at planned markets withefciently trained workers.
"It requires everybody working together on the same issues, the
same goals, in order to have that pipeline from cradle to career,"said Deborah Bayle, president and CEO of United Way of Utah.
http://www.ksl.com/index.php?sid=17427418&nid=481
She was speaking of Prosperity 2020. Are our schools nothing more
than a pipeline of pint-sized human capital?
Or, does the following more closely match Utah ideals?
-
7/28/2019 Rebuttal to the USBE Common Core Presentation
31/31
References for Gates Foundation and education reform
1. http://www.gatesfoundation.org/media-center/press-releases/2007/04/strong-american-schools-campaign-launches-to-promote-education-
reform-in-2008-presidential-election
2. http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_30/b4188058281758.htm#p4
3. http://www.mtairynews.com/view/full_story/6589448/article-N-C--one-of-16-nalists-for-Race-to-the-Top?instance=special_coverage_bul-lets_right_column
4. http://chronicle.com/blogs/innovations/the-core-between-the-states/29511
5. http://chronicle.com/blogs/innovations/the-core-between-the-states/29511
6. http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/stories/2009/05/18/story2.html?page=all
7. http://www.gatesfoundation.org/press-releases/Pages/national-parent-teacher-association-common-core-standards-091202.aspx
8. http://thejournal.com/articles/2011/04/05/gates-foundation-ups-stake-in-common-core-standards.aspx
9. http://www.gatesfoundation.org/press-releases/Pages/common-core-tools-110427.aspx
10. http://www.pearsoned.com/pearson-foundation-partners-bill-melinda-gates-foundation-create-digital-learning-programs/
11. http://www.gatesfoundation.org/How-We-Work/Quick-Links/Grants-Database/Grants/2011/11/OPP1044898