Glenn Beck responds...

With Sources!

What does common standards mean?

I've been collecting the definitions off of various government documents relating to the Common Core.

I thought I'd share them in light of the fact that elected officials are telling citizens that the 15% requirement is gone now that UT is out of Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC). Unfortunately, they are mistaken because the definition has been put in place across many documents. The most recent document is from the NCLB waiver.

Our State Office sites a letter from Arne Duncan stating that UT can set our own standards.  He's absolutely right we can but this letter was received before UT applied for the NCLB waiver.  Further, what constitutes Utah's standards?  Is it the 15% that we add in addition to the copyrighted standards?  If you look at the State Office of Education's standards page and scroll down to page three of the ELA standards you'll see these are not Utah's standards.

Don't believe me?  Take a look for yourself:

These are screenshots from "Utah's core" standards a.k.a. Common Core State Standards

1.  Here is where I went to search for the English Language Art Standards:

When I clicked on the link this is what I saw.  At first glance these really do look like UT owns them.

This is page two.  Same story...

From page three:

Notice who owns them.  And we had to get permission to modify them.

I emailed the associate superintendent to ask who we had to get permission from and what exactly we modified.  Once again, my email went unanswered.

I've asked our Governor, State Superintendent and various other officials at the state level if they can write another letter to Secretary Arne Duncan asking if UT can be exempt from the NCLB waiver definition page. My request has gone unanswered...

Here are the definitions (if you don't want to read them all... please scroll down to the bottom and look at the NCLB waiver definitions - UT is bound to this document):

Race to the Top Fund Assessment Program
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-04-09/pdf/2010-8176.pdf

Definitions page 30
Achievement standard means the level of student achievement on summative assessments that indicates that (a) for the final high school summative assessments in mathematics or English language arts, a student is college- and career-ready (as defined in this notice); or (b) for summative assessments in mathematics or English language arts at a grade level other than the final high school summative assessments, a student is on track to being college- and career-ready (as defined in this notice).   An achievement standard must be determined using empirical evidence over time.

College- and career-ready (or readiness) means, with respect to a student, that the student is prepared for success, without remediation, in credit- bearing entry-level courses in an IHE (as defined in section 101(a) of the HEA), as demonstrated by an assessment score that meets or exceeds the achievement standard (as defined in this notice) for the final high school summative assessment in mathematics or English language arts.

Common set of college- and career- ready standards means a set of academic content standards for grades K–12 that (a) define what a student must know and be able to do at each grade level; (b) if mastered, would ensure that the student is college- and career-ready (as defined in this notice) by the time of high school graduation; and (c) are substantially identical across all States in a consortium. A State may supplement the common set of college- and career-ready standards with additional content standards, provided that the additional standards do not comprise more than 15 percent of the State’s total standards for that content area. 

On track to being college- and career- ready 13 means, with respect to a student, that the student is performing at or above grade level such that the student will be college- and career-ready (as defined in this notice) by the time of high school graduation, as demonstrated by an assessment score that meets or exceeds the achievement standard (as defined in this notice) for the student’s grade level on a summative assessment in mathematics or English language arts.

Performance level descriptor means a statement or description of a set of knowledge and skills exemplifying a level of performance associated with a standard.

Student achievement data means data regarding an individual student’s mastery of tested content standards. Student achievement data from summative assessment components must be reported in a way that can be reliably aggregated across multiple students at the subgroup, 14 classroom, school, LEA, and State levels.

Student growth data means data regarding the change in student achievement data (as defined in this notice) between two or more points in time. Student growth data from summative assessment components must be reported in a way that can be reliably aggregated across multiple students at the subgroup, classroom, school, LEA, and State levels and over a full academic year or course.

Race to the Top
http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/executive-summary.pdf

Common set of K-12 standards means a set of content standards that define what students must know and be able to do and that are substantially identical across all States in a consortium. A State may supplement the common standards with additional standards, provided that the additional standards do not exceed 15 percent of the State's total standards for that content area.

Student achievement means—

(a) For tested grades and subjects:
(1) a student’s score on the State’s assessments under the ESEA; and, as appropriate,
(2) other measures of student learning, such as those described in paragraph
(b) of this definition, provided they are rigorous and comparable across classrooms.
(b) For non-tested grades and subjects: alternative measures of student learning and performance such as student scores on pre-tests and end-of-course tests; student performance on English language proficiency assessments; and other measures of student achievement that are rigorous and comparable across classrooms. 

Student growth means the change in student achievement (as defined in this notice) for an individual student between two or more points in time. A State may also include other measures that are rigorous and comparable across classrooms.

Race to the Top Phase 2
http://www2.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/announcements/2010-2/041410a.pdf

Common set of K–12 standards means a set of content standards that define what students must know and be able to do and that are substantially identical

Highly effective teacher means a teacher whose students achieve high rates (e.g., one and one-half grade levels in an academic year) of student growth (as defined in this notice). Sates, LEAs, or schools must include multiple measures, provided that teacher effectiveness is evaluated, in significant part, by student growth (as defined in this notice). Supplemental measures may include, for example, multiple observation-based assessments of teacher performance or evidence of leadership roles (which may include mentoring or leading professional learning communities) that increase the effectiveness of other teachers in the school or LEA.

America COMPETES Act elements means (as specified in section 6401(e)(2)(D) of that Act): (1) A unique statewide student identifier that does not permit a student to be individually identified by users of the system; (2) student-level enrollment, demographic, and program participation information; (3) student-level information about the points at which students exit, transfer in, transfer out, drop out, or complete P–16 education programs; (4) the capacity to communicate with higher education data systems; (5) a State data audit system assessing data quality, validity, and reliability; (6) yearly test records of individual students with respect to assessments under section 1111(b) of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 6311(b)); (7) information on students not tested by grade and subject; (8) a teacher identifier system with the ability to match teachers to students; (9) student- level transcript information, including information on courses completed and grades earned; (10) student-level college readiness test scores; (11) information regarding the extent to which students transition successfully from secondary school to postsecondary education, including whether students enroll in remedial coursework; and (12) other information determined necessary to address alignment and adequate preparation for success in postsecondary education

NCLB Waiver
http://www.ed.gov/esea/flexibility - in Document entitled ESEA-flexibility – updated June 7, 2012

1. College- and Career-Ready Standards: “College- and career-ready standards” are content standards for kindergarten through 12th grade that build towards college and career readiness by the time of high school graduation. A State’s college- and career-ready standards must be either (1) standards that are common to a significant number of States; or (2) standards that are approved by a State network of institutions of higher education, which must certify that students who meet the standards will not need remedial course work at the postsecondary level

6. Standards that are Common to a Significant Number of States: “Standards that are common to a significant number of States” means standards that are substantially identical across all States in a consortium that includes a significant number of States. A State may supplement such standards with additional standards, provided that the additional standards do not exceed 15 percent of the State’s total standards for a content area.

State Network of Institutions of Higher Education (IHEs): A “State network of institutions of higher education” means a system of four-year public IHEs that, collectively, enroll at least 50 percent of the students in the State who attend the State’s four-year public IHEs.

Discussion about Common Core math

Renee', Christel and I discuss Christel's experience on Glenn Beck

Common Core: A Mental Health Professional & Parent's Perspective

Thank you Dr. Thompson ~

Dear Mrs. Swasey & Mr. Beck:

I am writing this note on behalf of your joint request to address issues surrounding the Common Core State Standards Act (CCSS) that is currently in the process of being implemented in the vast majority of our public school systems in the country.

By way of background, I’m an African American Doctor of Clinical Psychology (Psy.D.) currently serving as Director of Clinical Training & Community Advocacy at a private child psychology clinic in South Jordan, Utah.  I completed undergraduate education at both the University of Utah in Salt Lake City, and Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah.  In addition to my personal experiences involving my four children in public schools, I have completed multiple thousands of hours in training/therapy/assessment/legal advocacy work with children in both the private and public school settings in multiple western states.   I am also the author of a award winning doctoral project/dissertation which tackled the ago old problem of why many African American school aged children underperform in public schools titled, “Cracking the Da Vince Code of Cognitive Assessment of African American School Aged Children:  A Guide for Parents, Clinicians & Educators” (Thompson, G. 2008).

As a “local clinical community scientist”, I have an ethical obligation to our community at large to provide unbiased opinions regarding issues that affect the education experiences of school-aged children and their respective guardians.  The “Common Core States Standards Act” (CCSS) falls uniquely into this category.    I have devoted many hours reading commentaries and studies, both pro and con, regarding the overall efficacy of CCSS.

In a nutshell, the (mostly) progressive public education community speaks highly of CCSS and its stated goal of raising educational standards across the board in a effort to improve the educational process for all students in the country, particularly under performing African American and Latino students nationwide.  

The (mostly) conservative opponents of CCSS claim that involvement in public school education should be primarily a local/statewide process, and that Federal intrusion into public school education is not effective for multiple alleged reasons.  In addition, there are disputes involving the CCSS curriculum itself whereas proponents cite multiple sources of research that allegedly support the efficacy of the education content.

Opponents also cite similar competing references that support their contention that CCSS curriculum stifles’ teachers’ creativity and that the content, especially in math, is not effective for early learners, gifted students, and children with diagnosed learning disabilities. The amount of information available to voters and parents by “experts”, both for and against CCSS, is overwhelming in its length, complexity and emotional intensity.   Like the Affordable Care Act, the implementation of the Common Core State Standards in the vast majority of public schools nationwide, has caused a seemingly unbridgeable divide in many quarters of this country.

I am not an expert in the development and implementation of core educational curriculum in public schools, so I will not comment on the issue.  I am not an expert on the effects of federal government involvement, verses local involvement, in public school education, so I will not comment on the issue.  I am not a forensic accountant with expertise in the areas of national and local financial accounting tax monies submitted towards public education, so I will not comment on that issue.  I am also not a politician, nor do I represent any special interest groups that could even be remotely tied to the multiple and complex issues surrounding CCSS.  I find the political process in this day and age to be ineffective and personally unfulfilling, and will not comment on the efficacy of education platforms set forth by the three main political parties.   I am, however, an expert in psychological and educational assessment/testing, as well as privacy acts surrounding the use of these tests in both private and educational settings.   My remaining comments will focus on these two issues as they are addressed by the CCSS.

Educational Testing

According to the U.S. Department of Education, CCSS will authorize the use of testing instruments that will measure the “attributes, dispositions, social skills, attitude’s and intra personal resources” of public school students under CCSS (USDOE Feb, 2013 Report).  In a nutshell, CCSS simply states that it will develop highly effective assessments that measures….well….almost ”everything.”  

Our clinic performs these comprehensive IEE’s (Individual Education Evaluations) on a daily basis. These test measure “attributes”, “dispositions”, “social skills”, “attitudes” and “intra personal resources” as stated by the USDOE.    In addition, we utilized state of the neuro-cognitive tests that measure the informational process functioning of children in school (Cognitive Assessment System, Naglieri 2002).   

A careful, or even a casual review of a “comprehensive evaluation” would clearly show that the level of information provided about a particular child is both highly sensitive and extremely personal in nature. They are also extremely accurate.  In a private clinic such as ours, we follow strict privacy guidelines regarding patient privacy (HIPPA) and when dealing with educational institutions, we also make sure that we comply with the FERPA Act (Federal Education Reporting & Privacy Act). 

Bluntly put, if a client’s records somehow get into the hands of anyone besides the parents without written consent from the parents, or a court order, our clinic would be shut down in a heartbeat and the clinician who released unauthorized comprehensive assessments would lose their license.   Clinical Psychologists in graduate level classrooms and clinical training sites spend years getting these basic privacy rights pounded into our heads.  Failure to articulate and implement strict privacy guidelines issued by the Federal Government, State licensing boards, or the American Psychological Association (APA) would result in immediate dismissal from graduate school academic institutions, as well as any clinical psychology training sites in either Internship or Residency settings.   

The accuracy of psychological testing has grown in the past 10 years to astonishing levels.  The same tests used in our clinic for assessments, are used in part by federal law enforcement agencies, the military, local police departments, and the Central Intelligence Agency. (Interesting enough, these agencies are also interested in finding out about alleged terrorist’s, serial killers, or airline pilots “attributes, dispositions, social skills, attitudes and intra personal resources”).  When placed in the “right” hands of trained mental health professionals, psychological testing can save lives.   Placed in the “wrong” hands, psychological testing can ruin lives as well as cause psychological trauma to people if they have knowledge that their results were used for nefarious purposes. 

Below are issues regarding CCSS “testing” policies that have not been addressed by the Common Core to State’s Governors’, State Superintendents, State School Boards, local school district superintendents, local school boards, to parents of children in public school education:

1. Common Core does not address what types of tests will be utilized on our children.
2. Common Core does not address, specifically, exactly who is developing these tests.
3. Common Core does not address the fact that these tests have not yet been developed, and are not available for public consumption or private review by clinical psychology  researchers and psychometric professionals.
4. Common Core does not address if the soon to be completed tests will be subjected to the same rigorous peer review process that ALL testing instruments are subjected to prior to being released to mental health professionals for their use in the private sector.
5. Common Core does not state which public school employees would be administering or interpreting these tests.   There is a reason that School Psychologists cannot “practice” outside of their scope in school districts.   As hard working and as wonderful as this group is, their training pales in comparison to the average local clinical psychologist.
6. Common Core does not address the well documented, peer-reviewed fact that both African American and Latino students, due to cultural issues, tend to have skewed testing results when cultural issues are not addressed prior to the initiation of such testing.  This should probably be addressed if these results are going to be following a student “from cradle to high school graduation.” 
7. Lastly, once these highly intimate, powerful, and most likely inaccurate testing results are completed, who EXACTLY will have access to all of this data?   Common Core DOES address this issue and it is the subject of the next section.

Privacy

  

I mentioned above that our private clinic is subjected to multiple federal, state, and professional association regulations when it comes to protecting and releasing mental health records.   The rationale behind these regulations is obvious in nature both to the professionals, as well as their clients.   Records do not leave our clinic unless the guardians of the children instruct us, or unless a District Court judge orders the release of the records.   In some cases, we are even ethically obligated to fight court orders that request private mental health records.   

Common Core State Standards radically changes this game.  

Prior to CCSS, public school districts were required to adhere to the same rules and regulations regarding private records as our clinic is subjected to.   HIPPA tells us how to store records, were to store records, and whom to release them too.  FERPA (Federal Education Records Protection Act) is subjected to HIPPA requirements when it comes to protecting sensitive education records.   As show herein, educational testing records are highly sensitive and it only makes common sense that this practice of protecting these sensitive records continues.   

Buried in all of the fine print of the CCSS is a provision that allows participating school districts to ignore HIPPA protections.   The newly revised FERPA laws grants school districts and states HIPPA privacywaivers.  

Department of Health & Human Services Regulation Section 160.103 states, in part,:

“Protected health information EXCLUDES individually identifiable health information in education records covered by the Family Education Rights & Privacy Act (FERPA), as amended 20 U.S.C. 1232 g”.

CCSS also states that this “information” may be distributed to “organizations conducting studies for, or on behalf of, educational agencies or institutions to develop, validate, or administer predictive testing.” (CCSS (6)(i).  

In summary CCSS allows the following by law:

1. Grants school districts a waiver from FERPA in terms of deleting identifying information on their records.
2. Allows school districts to then give these identifiable records basically to anyone who they deem to have an viable interest with these records.
3. These organization or individuals chosen by the government to use this data to develop highly accurate predictive tests with no stated ethical procedures, guidelines, or institutional controls.   (What are they exactly trying to “predict”?”
4. All without written parental consent.   

The “Comprehensive Statewide Longitudinal Data System,” employed by CCSS that will hold this sensitive data, per DOE webpage, states, “all States implement state longitudinal data systems that involve elements specified in the “America Competes Act”.   I spent two hours pouring over this Act to see if there were any further guidelines to Federal of State officials as such may pertain to privacy issues.   None could be found.    

Proponents of the CCSS point to volumes of articles and promises and policies that state that our children’s data will be private and protected by the national and state data systems that will shortly be implemented per CCSS guidelines.   I have very little doubt that the computer systems employed by Federal, State and local districts that contain this data will be state of the art computer systems.  Others whom are experts in this field may differ strongly).  The point however is this: CCSS does not specify who can have access to their records, or for what specific purposes this sensitive data will be utilized.   When it comes to addressing privacy issues, the CCSS contains abundant, generalized “legal speak”.

In terms of privacy issues, below are issues regarding CCSS “privacy” policies that have not been addressed by the Common Core to State’s Governors, State Superintendents, State School Boards, local school district superintendents, local school boards, to the parents of children in public school education:

1. Exactly WHO will have access to records obtained by this national/state database?  The generic political answer of “Appropriately designated education officials or private research entities” does not “cut the mustard.”
2. For what EXACT purpose will this sensitive data be utilized?  
3. What organizations will have access to identifiable academic records?  Other than generic information regarding race, age, gender and geographic location, why does the Federal database require identifiable information to be accessible? 
4.  If the political responses to these questions are “all information contained in the database is unidentifiable and securely stored,” then why were changes made to FERPA to allow an exemption to educational privacy rights when it comes to the implementation of Common Core State Standards?
5. What type of “predictive tests” are currently being designed and who will have access to results of whatever is being measured?

Conclusion

Like the infamous “No Child Left Behind” laws that on some levels (with the sole exceptions of the 2004 IDEA Act included in NCLB), have set back progress of public school education years, I honestly believe that a few lawmakers with good hearts and intentions honestly wanted to find solutions to our public school systems.  I believe also that the Obama Administration wants every child to have a proper and rigorous education and that the implementation of Common Core will bring them closer to that goal.

I am also, however, a local clinical community scientist. In this role I have several serious questions concerning CCSS noted herein which have yet to be answered to my satisfaction as a scientist, education advocate, and parent. I would implore every Governor, State Superintendent, and State School Board member in the country to honestly and openly explore the issues cited above and provide accurate answers to these issues to the public in “plain speak”.

Given the gravity of these issues, I cannot professionally endorse the Common Core State Standards as currently written until pointed clarification is provided by politicians and educators from both party’s endorsing CCSS.  Nor in good conscience can I enroll my toddler in a public school system that utilizes CCSS until these issues are clarified to my satisfaction. 

The issues involving psychological testing and privacy are issues that should be of concern to every parent with a child enrolled in public school.    The power granted federal and state education administrators via the regulations of CCSS are unprecedented in nature.   Some parents will be quite comfortable with CCSS even in light of the issues detailed in this letter.   Some parents would be aghast with the same provisions.   Regardless, parents deserve to be clearly informed about these and other issues surrounding CCSS in a clear and straightforward manner so that they can make educated choices regarding their children’s educations.

On a final note, I wish to publically show my support to the underpaid and overworked public school teachers nationwide.  If I had the power, I would elevate their status to that of a medical doctor in terms of pay and prestige. What they do with the limited resources available, and with the burden of bureaucracy following their every professional move is simply nothing short of amazing.  Our clinic employees several public school teachers (One is a former Utah Teacher of the Year), and school psychologist due to their amazing talents and abilities of reaching the hearts and minds of our young and diverse educational psychology clients.  

There are answers to most of the perplexing questions facing public school officials.  I believe these answers can be readily found in multiple peer-reviewed journals in neuropsychology, clinical psychology, education and public policy.  Answers can also be found by mining the experiences, wants and needs of our hardworking public school teachers on the local and statewide ground level, as well as local parenting organization of various stripes.  Once science and cultural based solution are found and implemented, I believe even cynical conservative lawmakers nationwide would be more willing to pony up additional tax payer money when presented with imaginative, science based educational models in pubic school systems.   On the other hand, simply adding billions of dollars towards a 150-year old foundational system of education in crisis without implementing massive changes is irresponsible, unimaginative, and most likely politically  and monetarily motivated. 

When politics and money are taken out of the public school education policy arena and replaced with common sense and culturally sensitive science, mixed in with local value systems, I believe we, as a nation will make great strides in the goal of educating our children.   

Until that time comes, it is my wish that regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation and political affiliations, our country will join together at the grass roots to amicably reach “common core” grounds of restoring our once proud public education system.  

Best regards,

Dr. Gary Thompson

Director of Clinical Training & Community Advocacy Services

Early Life Child Psychology & Education Center, Inc.

www.earlylifepsych.com

Doctor Thompson can be reached for comment at drgary@earlylifepsych.com

https://www.facebook.com/notes/early-life-child-psychological-educational-services-inc/common-core-a-mental-health-professional-parents-perspective/555418941145364

White Paper

This is an excellent paper on the controls Common Core will have on education in America.

Controlling Education From the Top

Judge Jackson

Last month I met a lady who had seen my you tube video and we started corresponding via email.  She asked if I would send her some of my research so she could have her dad look over it and give his legal interpretation.      Little did I know he was a retired Appellate Judge for Utah!!

He looked over the documents I sent his daughter and this is what he found:


MEMO: TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

SUBJECT:   FEDERAL/STATE COMMON CORE EDUCATION INITIATIVES AND STANDARDS

FROM: JUDGE NORMAN H. JACKSON, UTAH COURT OF APPEALS, RETIRED.

Some concerned Utah parents recently asked me to evaluate the following contractual documents:

LEGAL ANALYSIS OF UTAH’S COMMON CORE STANDARDS CONTRACTS -

1. “Memorandum of Understanding/SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium/Race to the Top
Fund Assessment Program: Comprehensive Assessment Systems Grant Application/CFDA Number:
84.395B.”

This contract is dated May 14, 2010. The State of Utah became a party to this contract when it was signed
by Superintendent Shumway 05/20/10, School Board President Roberts 05/20/2010, Procurement Official
Beers on 05/25/10 and Governor Herbert on 05/25/10. All participating states signed separate portions of
the document consisting of about seventeen pages each.

The State of Washington signed a separate signature block as the member acting on behalf of ALL states
joining the Consortium. Washington State officials signed the contract and certified as follows:

“I certify on behalf of the Consortium that each member of (it) has agreed to be BOUND by every statement and assurance in the application and that each Governing State is FULLY COMMITTED to the application and WILL SUPPORT its implementation”. Utah is #5 of 16 Governing States. (Page 12)

To be an eligible Consortium, at least 15 states must participate and at least 5 of them must be Governing
States. Washington is designated as both a Governing State and the Lead Procurement State/Lead State for
the Consortium. 30 states have signed the contract with 17 designated as Governing States. Utah is listed as
one of the Governing States above.

Eligibility Requirement (3), Page 15: To remain in the Consortium, each applicant must submit an assurance
that (1) by December 31, 2011, it WILL ADOPT a common set of college and career standards pursuant to NIA definitions and (2) by the 2014-2015 school year, it WILL ADOPT common achievement standards per NIA definitions. Note the mandatory language.

Utah’s Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) above is numbered pages “UT 1-17”.  It BINDS Utah to the PROGRAM published in the “Federal Register on April 9, 2010 (75 FR 18171-18185).  The stated purposes of the MOU are numbered (a) to (h). Purpose (f) prescribes how a state can enter, EXIT or change status. A state can leave the Consortium “without cause”. BUT IT MUST COMPLY with a FIVE STEP EXIT PROCESS: (1) File a written request and the reasons for it, (2) must include the statutory or policy reasons for it, (3) submit to Project Management Partner with same signatures as the MOU, (4) the Executive Committee is to act on it within a week, and (5) if APPROVED, the Project Management Partner will submit a change of membership to the United States Education Department for its APPROVAL. (Both Approvals are discretionary rather than mandatory.)

Based on the above plain language of this Contract (MOU), I am of the opinion that the State of Utah
is legally bound by and locked into the Consortium on a contractual basis. Further, Utah would find it
difficult to withdraw/exit (1) because there has been substantial performance of the contract by all parties
(assuming there was compliance with past contractual deadlines) and (2) because the exit process requires
discretionary APPROVAL of the Executive Committee of the State partners plus discretionary APPROVAL of the Federal Government. The following Contracts bind Utah to further Common Core Standard provisions.

2. Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium Governance Structure Document dated July 1, 2010,
Amended November 22, 2011. The amendment was approved by vote of the Governing States on
December 5, 2011 with 16 in favor and 0 opposed.

An official of the State of Utah must have approved this contract by an affirmative vote. I assume it was our
State Superintendent.  In any event, the minutes of the State School Board Meeting held August 6, 2010,
state that the Board officially voted to adopt the Common Core Standards. Moreover, “This document states that it “supersedes the specific GOVERNANCE structure provisions set forth in the MOU”.

Section IV, B sets forth the identical exit process above described.  It appears that Utah now can act by a
VOTE to approve and amend these contracts rather than signing them.

3. Cooperative Agreement between the U.S. Department of Education and the Smarter Balanced
Assessment Consortium and the State of Washington (fiscal agent) dated January 7, 2011. (190
pages).

 The objective of this document is “to assist the consortium in fulfilling, at a minimum, the goals articulated
in the consortium’s approved Race to the Top Assessment (RTTA) application per requirements published
in the Federal Register on April 9, 2010”. This award is a cooperative agreement in accord with 34 Code
of Federal Regulations 75.200(b)(4) because the Secretary of Education has determined that substantial
involvement between the U. S. Department of Education is necessary to carry out a successful project.

It contains a Project Management Plan listing the Responsibilities of the Recipient and the Federal
Government. Patrick Rooney is designated as the Program Officer for the United States Department of
Education and Joe Wilhoft is designated as the Program Representative for Washington State (Smarter
Balanced Assessment Consortium). The estimated cost for the work to be performed under this Agreement
2is $159,976,843 and $15,872,696 for a supplemental award.

Article VI – Failure to Address Objectives states: “Failure to comply with the content of this agreement
may result in the Secretary imposing special conditions on the award pursuant to EDGAR Section 80.12 or
taking other enforcement actions, including partly suspending or terminating the award pursuant to EDGAR
Section 80.43.

Appendix E lists fourteen Race to the Top Conditions including: Condition B requires compliance with
sections 14005 and 14006 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). Condition C requires
compliance with “all applicable operational and administrative provisions in Titles XV and XVI of the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA).

Appendix A8 contains Budget Tables, Narratives and Detailed Budget Modules. Part A: Summary Table
projects Budgets for four years for the following items:  1. Governance $10,435,922.  2. Assessment Design
$97,950,884. 3. System Design $428,693.  4. Research and Evaluation $5,008,550.  5. Professional Capacity and Outreach $ 7,550,650.  6. Technology $27,074,143.  7. Higher Education Engagement $1,538,977. Total = $149,987,819.  $9,994,724 is then budgeted for three years of Comprehensive Assessments.

Appendix A8-7: Survey of Operational Costs for Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium States
itemizes “Estimated Annual Contracted Expenditures for Mathematics and ELA Assessment” divided
between General Funds and Federal Funds:  The estimate for #27 Utah is $383,000 of General Funds and
$1,595,000 of Federal Funds.

In my opinion, the plain language of the three contracts legally binds Utah and the Consortium to proceed
with implementation of the Federal Common Core Standards.

Additionally, this Opinion is supported by the material fact that on September 28, 2010, Director Joseph
Conaty, of the United States Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education,
Academic Improvement And Teacher Quality Programs, delivered to Washington State Governor Gregorie
a grant award notification (GAN) for the Race To The Top Assessment Program. The award was funded by
the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act on the basis of an approved budget of $159,976,843 for the
Smarter Balance Assessment Consortium. The notice set a deadline of January 7, 2011 to finalize the above
Cooperative Agreement which bears the same date.

The GAN states that it will “include substantial involvement on the part of the Department of Education. A
second GAN was enclosed for a supplemental award of $15,872,696 with the same conditions and deadline.

COST TO ALIGN UTAH TO THE NATIONAL COMMON CORE STANDARDS –

At this point, I have not been able to confirm whether Utah’s Budget for fiscal year 2012-2013 included
funds from the Consortium. Even so, Utah has already been expending funds to implement the Race to the
Top Assessment Program. Also, it is not clear if either our Executive Branch or the Legislature has estimated
the costs Utah will incur during the next four years to implement and align the Program.

 I have located a recent national study which contains some estimates for Utah: National Cost of Aligning
3States and Localities to the Common Core Standards, A Pioneer Institute and American Principles Project
White Paper, No. 82, February 2012.

These are mid-range estimates that only address basic expenditures required for implementation of the new
standards. Also, they are based on a typical standards time horizon of seven (7) years rather than four (4)
years.

Figure 4B, Professional Development Costs for the States in Smart Balance Assessment Consortiums Only.
Utah’s estimate is $50,000,000. (Page 16)

Figure 5B, Textbooks and Materials Costs for States in Smart Balance Assessment Consortiums Only. Utah’s estimate is $35,000,000. (Page 19)

Figure 6B, Multi-Year Technology Costs for States in Smart Balance Assessment Consortiums Only. Utah’s estimate is $100,000,000. (Page 22)

The study states that “As of this writing, none of the states that have adopted Common Core have released
a cost feasibility analysis of the technology infrastructure and support necessary to administer either of the
testing consortia’s online assessments”. It concludes “Implementation of the Common Core Standards is
likely to represent substantial additional expense to most states. While a handful of states have begun to
analyze these costs, most states have signed on to the initiative without a thorough public vetting of the
costs and benefits. In particular, there has very little attention to the potential technology infrastructure
costs that currently cash-strapped districts may face in order to implement the Common Core assessments
within a reasonable testing window”.

Queries: Has Utah begun to analyze these costs? Has there been a thorough public vetting of both the costs
and the benefits?

Date: April 12, 2012.
Judge, Norman H. Jackson, Utah Court of Appeals, Retired. (801) 224-4947. normjacksonjd@msn.com.

Education Without Representation:

Education Without Representation:  a response to claims of the Utah State School Board’s Common Core flier  

 

The Utah State Board of Education has circulated a flier which is posted on the official website. http://www.schools.utah.gov/core/DOCS/coreStandardsPamphlet.aspx

 

None of the claims of the flier have been backed up with references. This response will be backed up with references to verifiable sources and legally binding documents.

 

• The flier says that Utah is "free to change the Utah Core Standards at any time,"
• and calls the following truth a myth: "Adoption of these new Core Standards threatens the ability of parents, teachers and local school districts to control curriculum." These half-truths are extremely misleading.

FACT: It is true that Utah can change the current Utah Core. But Utah is not free to change the common CCSS standards. And very soon, the CCSS standards will be all we’ll teach. The CCSS standards are the only standards the common test is being written to. The CCSS standards are the only standards that are truly common to all Common Core states. Unique state standards are meaningless in the context of the tests. This has been verified by WestEd, the test maker.http://whatiscommoncore.wordpress.com/2012/04/06/what-is-wested-and-why-should-you-care/

When teachers realize that merit pay and student performance depend on how well teachers teach the CCSS, and not on how well they teach the Utah Core, they will abandon the state core and focus on teaching to the CCSS-based test. Since there is no possibility for Utah to make changes to CCSS, we have given up our educational system if we take the common test. This is education without representation. Already there are significant differences between the Utah Core and the CCSS (such as, we allow lots of classic literature and CCSS does not; it favors slashing literature in favor of infotexts in English classes). When additional wrongheaded changes come to the CCSS standards, under Common Core, Utah will be unable to do anything about it. CCSS has no amendment process.

FACT: The CCSS standards amount to education without representation. They cannot be amended by us, yet they are sure to change over time. A U.S.O.E. lawyer was asked, "Why is there no amendment process for the CCSS standards?" She did not claim that there was one. Instead, she replied: "Why would there need to be? The whole point is to be common." (Email received April 2012 by C. Swasey from C. Lear)

 

• The flier states that this is a myth: "Utah adopted nationalized education standards that come with federal strings attached.”

FACT:   Utah's Cooperative Agreement with the U.S. Department of Education (via the SBAC tests; link below) presents so many federal strings, it's more like federal rope around Utah's neck.

 

The Cooperative Agreement mandates synchronization of testing arms and testing, mandates giving status updates and written reports and phone conferences with the federal branch and it demands that “across consortia,” member states provide data “on an ongoing basis” for perusal by the federal government. This federal control is, according to G.E.P.A. laws and the U.S. Constitution, an illegal encroachment by the federal government on our state.http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop-assessment/sbac-cooperative-agreement.pdf

 

FACT: The Federal government paid for the promotion of Common Core. It paid other groups to do what it constitutionally forbiddewn to do. Each group that worked to develop the standards and/or the test were federally funded and each remains under compliance regulations of federal grants. For two examples, PARCC (a testing consortium) was funded through a four-year, $185 million dollar grant from the U.S. Department of Education to delivering a K-12 assessment system.http://www.achieve.org/achieve-names-three-directors. WestED, the other consortium test writer for SBAC, is funded by the executive branch, including the U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Department of Education, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Department of Justice.http://www.wested.org/cs/we/print/docs/we/fund.htm. There are many more examples of federal funding and federal promotion of this supposedly state-led initative if you just do a little digging.

 

FACT: To exit the SBAC, a state must get federal approval and the permission of a majority of consortium states.  http://www.sendbigfiles.com/9893a0d64ef55d966b7780a034259c63/  (page 297). 

 

FACT:  When South Carolina recently made moves to sever ties with the Common Core Initiative, Arne Duncan, the U.S. Secretary of Education, began to make angry, unsubstatiated attacks, insulting South Carolina.   http://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/statement-us-secretary-education-arne-duncan-1   Duncan had similarly insulted Texas educators on national television and had made incorrect statements about Texas education, when that state refused to join Common Core.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2089503,00.html

 

• The flier states that this is a myth: “Utah taxpayers will have to pay more money to implement the new Utah Core Standards.” 

FACT: No cost analysis has been done by Utah. (Ask U.S.O.E. to see one.)

FACT: Other states cited high implementation costs as reasons they rejected the Common Core Initiative. The Texas Education Agency estimated implementing the Common Core standards in the state would result in professional development costs of $60 million for the state and approximately $500 million for local school districts, resulting in a total professional development cost of $560 million. http://www.pioneerinstitute.org/pdf/120222_CCSSICost.pdf (p. 15) Also, Virginia’s State School Board cited both educational and financial reasons for rejecting Common Core. http://www.doe.virginia.gov/news/news_releases/2010/jun16.pdf

FACT: California is asking for tax hikes right now to pay for Common Core Implementation. http://www.educationnews.org/education-policy-and-politics/california-wants-a-tax-hike-to-pay-for-common-core/

FACT: South Carolina’s Governor Haley is right now trying to escape Common Core’s federal and financial entanglements. http://www.educationnews.org/education-policy-and-politics/sc-gov-nikki-haley-backs-bill-to-block-common-core-standards/

 

• The flier states that “The Utah Core Standards were created, like those in 44 other states, to address the problem of low expectations.”

This is a half-truth. While some dedicated Utahns have been working to address the problem of low expectations for years, the Common Core Initiative was hastily adopted for financial reasons. Utah agreed to join the Common Core and the SBAC long before the common standards had even been written or released, or any cost analysis or legal analysis had taken place. Utah joined Common Core and the SBAC to get more eligibility points in the points-based “Race to the Top” grant application. While Utah didn’t win the grant money, it stayed tied to Common Core and the SBAC testing consortium afterwards. http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/phase1-applications/utah.pdf

 

 

• The flier states that this is a myth:  "Political leaders and education experts oppose the Common Core State Standards."

FACT:  Stanford Professor Michael Kirst testified, among other things, that it is unrealistic to call four year, two year, and vocational school preparation equal college readiness preparation: http://collegepuzzle.stanford.edu/?p=466

FACT:  Professor Sandra Stotsky who served on the CC Validation Committee refused to sign off on the standards as authentic English preparation for college:http://parentsacrossamerica.org/2011/04/sandra-stotsky-on-the-mediocrity-of-the-common-core-ela-standards/

FACT: Mathematician Ze’ev Wurman has testified to the South Carolina Legislature that the math standards are insufficient college preparation:http://pioneerinstitute.org/pdf/120216_Testimony_Stergios_SC.pdf and http://truthinamericaneducation.com/tag/zeev-wurman/

• The flier states inaccurately states: “Most thoughtful people on this issue have lined up in favor of the Common Core State Standards.”

FACT: Governor Herbert is in the middle of a legal, educational and financial review of the standards right now. He affirmed to Heber City teachers and citizens last month that he is willing to review the standards and the political complications of the Common Core Initiative and to meet again with the teachers and citizens together with his legal team.

FACT: The majority of gubernatorial candidates and candidates for senate and house representation at the Republican convention have stated that they are directly opposed to the Common Core Initiative.  This fact is verifiable via the document published for the 2012 Republican convention by Alisa Ellis, on which each candidate was asked to state whether he/she was for, against, or still learning, about the Common Core Initiative. 

 

FACT:  In less than two weeks, more than 1,500 Utah teachers, parents, taxpayers and students have signed the petition at  http://utahnsagainstcommoncore.com without any advertising or marketing efforts, just by word of mouth.

 

FACT:   There is a significant group of Utah educators who have not and will not speak out in this forum, although they do have serious concerns about the Common Core.  There is a perception that to speak against the Common Core Initiative is unacceptable or disloyal. This spiral of silence spins from the fear educators have of losing their jobs if they express what they really see. Some educators quietly and confidentially reveal this to others who boldly oppose to Common Core. 

 

Utah educators might respond well to an anonyomously administered survey, so that educators might feel safer in sharing multicolored rather than all rose colored, experiences from this first year of Common Core Implementation, without having to identify themselves.  Educators who have had a good experience with this first year of implementation of Common Core dare speak out.  But Utah educators who do speak out boldly against common core, if you pay close attention, are those who are on maternity leave or who have sources of income other than educating, for financial support, and are thus unafraid of losing jobs. 

 

This final point is obviously difficult to substantiate, but ought to be studied and either verified or proven false, by the Utah State School Board. 

 

Christel Swasey

Heber City

Parent and Teacher