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.

White Paper

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

Controlling Education From the Top

The Letter Judge Jackson sent...

In another post I explain how Judge Jackson got some of the research I've been gathering.  After studying out the research, here is a letter he sent to his representative.

Dear Representative McIff:

Thank you for opening a dialogue with my daughter, JaKell Sullivan, regarding the "Common Core" research which she recently shared with us. I indicated that we would glean further information and share it with you. I am now reporting. At this point, I know more than was my original intent and the political pot on this issue seems to be overflowing into two separate schools of thought. Moreover, time is obviously of the essence due to the status of the political calendar.

The first school of thought in Utah comes from the Governor's Office and the State School Board. They are circulating a six page Q&A document: Utah's Common Core, Draft 2.22.12. It poses questions in three groupings 1. Frequently Asked Questions 2. Process 3. Implementation and Future Work. The next to the last question is: What is the role of the federal government in (Common Core) standards implementation? The answer is: The federal government has had NO role in their implementation. The first question on Page 2 is: Who is leading the Common Core State Standards Initiative? The answer is: The Council of Chief State State School Officers (CCSSO) and the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices (NGA Center).

The second school of thought comes from several citizens, including concerned mothers and teachers who have done their homework. They have directed me to three basic underlying contract documents which Utah's Executive Branch has agreed to. They conclude that these documents grant control of "Common Core" standards and implementation to the Federal Government, namely the United States Department of Education, ie President Obama's staff.

Based on my examination of -
 1. Memorandum of Understaning/SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium/Race to the Top Fund Assessment Program: Comprehensive Assessments Systems Grant Application/CFDA Number: 84.395B,
 2. Smarter Balanced Assesment Consortium - Governance Structure Document, July 1, 2010, Amended November 22, 2011, and
 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, PR/Award #: S395B100003 and S395B100003A (190 pages).
- I Concur with the conclusion of the citizens.
My opinion is based on the plain language of these contracts as set forth in my Memo: To Whom It May Concern, Subject: Federal/State Common Core Initiatives and Standards, Dated April 12, 2012 (4 pages attached). The opinion has detailed analysis of each contract.

This opinion is also supported by a grant award notification letter (GAN) dated September 28, 2010 from Director Conaty of the U. S. Department of Education to Washington State Governor Gregorie. The award is for the Race to the Top Assessment Program. It is 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 deadlilne of January 7, 2011 to finalize the above Cooperative Agreement which bears the same date. The GAN states that it will "include substantial involvement of the U. S. Department of Education".

FYI: I  have also attached a copy of National Federation of Republican Women Resolution, Defeat National Standards for State Schools, Adopted Unaniously at the NFRW 36th Biennial Convention, October 1, 2011 (1 page) .

In the interest of time, I am sharing this message with several other people. I invite them also to examine these materials and share their comments. Your cooperation and assistance are appreciated. Norman H. Jackson, Judge Utah Court of Appeals, Retired.

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

Deseret News Article

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865554214/Politics-misinformation-feed-Common-Core-debate-education-official-says.html

The above article did a decent job of trying to tell an even story but just by the title you can tell which way it's slanted.  I need to clear something up - "There's no harm in raising the standards," Ellis said. "I just don't think it should be done the way it's being done." 


 I never said there is no harm in raising the standards.  I told Mr. Wood that I am all for raising standards but I don't think we're doing it the right way. 


If you don't want to read the entire article skip down to the bottom to see the facts they've been looking for.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SALT LAKE CITY — Criticism of the Common Core State Standards is intensifying as Utah's election season progresses.

Utah has been a part of the consortium of states implementing common educational standards for more than two years. But the topic has gained notoriety in recent months, from multiple bills debated during the legislative session asserting the state's educational sovereignty, to candidates for public office frequently being questioned on their support or opposition to the standards.

The Common Core State Standards are a set of achievement benchmarks in mathematics and English language arts. They are voluntarily adopted, with the goal of improving college- and career-readiness among students as well as establishing a degree of educational consistency between states.

To many, however, that push for inter-state consistency and collaboration echoes over-reaching federal control of local education. After 10 years of hearing educators lament the teach-to-the-test burden of No Child Left Behind, many parents are crying foul.

The group Utahns Against Common Core has launched a petition on its website and has gathered more than 1,000 signatures. The petition calls for a withdrawal from the common core standards and demands that full control over curriculum and assessments be given to local school districts. It also calls for the state to develop a five-year plan to remove any and all dependence on federal education funding.

Sydnee Dickson, director of teaching and learning for the State Office of Education, said most of the concerns she's heard regarding the standards are based on misinformation. She said much of the furor over Common Core is politically-motivated — stemming from anti-federal sentiment and ignoring the standards themselves — and is perpetuated by blogs instead of factual data.

"We're already seeing higher pass rates," she said. "Our experience since we began the adoption is that it's changed the instruction. Teachers are expecting more rigor."

Utah Eagle Forum President Gayle Ruzicka said she supports raising education standards in Utah, but doesn't agree that the states needs national benchmarks to do so.

"We don't have to do Common Core to raise mathematics standards," she said. "We don't have to do Common Core to work with other states. Raising standards and Common Core are two different things."

Ruzicka, like many opponents of Common Core, foresees a federal takeover of education with Utah's participation held hostage by federal dollars. Dickson said that there is no tie between adopting the standards and receiving federal funding and emphasized the  standards do not threaten state sovereignty.

"Teachers and school districts are still in control of what is being taught and how it's being taught," she said.

The topic was addressed recently at an April 11 Republican gubernatorial debate. Nearly all the candidates expressed a need for greater local control of education, with Morgan Philpot and William Skokos stating explicitly their opposition to the Common Core State Standards.

"I will fight to get us out of Common Core," Philpot said, drawing cheers from the crowd.

Gov. Gary Herbert, who has overseen the adoption of the Common Core standards, instead focused on the need for greater rigor in Utah classrooms and spoke favorably of shutting down the federal Department of Education.

While anti-federal ideology plays a large part in the debate, there is also a concern among some parents, like Alisa Ellis, that the common standards would impede well-performing students from accelerating their education. Ellis has worked with her children to get ahead in math and hopefully complete AP Calculus in their junior year of high school. She said she was unsure what effect the new benchmarks would have on students in the tops of their classes. 

"How can you take a whole nation and put it into the same window without hurting the top and bottom?" Ellis said.

Dickson said that under Common Core, accelerated tracks and honors courses will continue to be available. If a student is gifted enough to skip courses, parents and school districts can work together to make that happen. 

She also said that with AP examinations taken independent of a classroom, there is nothing to stop a student in their junior year from registering for and taking the test if they feel proficient.

Dawn Davies, Utah Parent Teacher Association vice president, agreed with Dickson, saying the standards set a minimum benchmark for each grade but do not prevent anyone from moving ahead. She said the standards help make students better able to meet global and local business needs and prepare students who are entering or exiting the state.

"We are a mobile society and as people come to our state we need to have the high standards," Davies said.

Ruzicka, however, downplayed the need for inter-state consistency as a solution in search of a problem.

Ellis said she is more worried about federal control than the standards themselves. She said she met with Herbert and members of the State Board of Education but that they had failed to answer her questions, instead turning discussion back to the benchmarks raised under Common Core.

"There's no harm in raising the standards," Ellis said. "I just don't think it should be done the way it's being done."

Dickson said officials focus on the standards because that is, in essence, what the Common Core State Standards are. She said the peripheral discussions of socialism — she's heard the standards referred to by opponents as the "Communist" Core — and federal manipulation is little more than political fodder in a campaign season.

"I have yet to hear any of the political comments that are valid," Dickson said. "It's all steeped in fear and not fact."

---------------------------------

Well Ms. Dickson here are the facts:

1.        The Governor of Utah has signed Utah on as a governing member of Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC)( http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/phase2-applications/appendixes/utah.pdf - see page 301) whose assessments include psychometric attribute testing of our children.

·         Psychometric testing is “any test used to quantify a particular aspect of a person's mental abilities or mindset–eg, aptitude, intelligence, mental abilities and personality. See IQ test, Personality testing, Psychological testing.”( http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/psychometric+test)

EVIDENCE:  Psychometric testing is a violation of Utah law per code section 53A-302. (http://le.utah.gov/~code/TITLE53A/htm/53A13_030200.htm)

EVIDENCE:  Utah is “committed to implement a plan to identify any existing barriers in state law, statute, regulation, or policy to implementing the proposed assessment system and to addressing any such barriers prior to full implementation of the summative assessment components of the system” – (http://www.smarterbalanced.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Smarter-Balanced-Governance.pdf)

2.        Membership in SBAC obligates us to work in consensus with 30 other states thus eliminating local control of Utah education.

EVIDENCE:   (http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop-assessment/rtta2010smarterbalanced.pdf - pg. 26)

3.       There are only two organizations, SBAC and PARCC (Partnership for Assessment of Readiness of College and Careers), creating assessments for the standards and those groups were funded by the Federal Government.

EVIDENCE:  (http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop-assessment/awards.html)

4.       Utah, along with other states didn’t officially adopt Common Core until being incentivized through the Federal Race to the Top (RTTT) grant process. 

EVIDENCE:  The Whiteboard advisors said, “…the effort gained a great deal of momentum when the Obama Administration included participation in the Common Core as an eligibility criterion for many of the programs created out of the $110 billion stimulus funds. Programs such as Race to the Top rewarded states that not only participated in developing the Common Core, but also adopted them.” (From Education Insider: Common Core Standards and Assessment Coalitions: Whiteboard Advisors)(http://www.commoncoresolutions.com/PDF/education_brief.pdf - pg. 7)

EVIDENCE:  States were given more points for “raising standards” and also for joining a group of states to create assessments.

·         Membership in the assessment groups then required states to adopt Common Core Standards (http://www.smarterbalanced.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Smarter-Balanced-Governance.pdf) – pg. 3

5.        Nearly at the same time as the above RTTT, the Federal Government announced additional incentives with the Race to the Top for Assessments (RTTTA) Funds requiring states to join with other states and create common assessments and standards to receive the prize.

EVIDENCE:  “To be eligible to receive the award an eligible applicant must include a minimum of 15 states.”  (http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop-assessment/rtta2010smarterbalanced.pdf - pg.12)

EVIDENCE:  “…an eligible applicant must submit assurances from each State that the State will adopt a common set of … standards” (pg. 15)

6.        The Utah State School Board was given a weekend  to sign an Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) which;

a.        Authorized the creation of Common Core Sate Standards

b.      Gave the Federal Government permission to “provide key financial support for this effort in developing a common core of state standards and in moving toward common assessments, such as through the Race to the Top Fund. (http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/phase1-applications/appendixes/utah.pdf- pg. 90)

EVIDENCE:  Dr. Hales presented the information about developing Common Standards to the Board on May 1, 2009 and “Indicated that they would like us to sign a MOU on Monday [May 4^th] if we are going to participate.”

(http://www.schools.utah.gov/board/Minutes/2009/090501.aspx - pg. -18068-)

7.       The Utah State School Board recognized Common Core Standards as National Standards from the beginning as is noted in the State School Board Minutes from April 2009.

EVIDENCE:   “WestEd which is an arm of the US Department of Education has askedfor some that are in that [American Diploma Project ADP] to come together to create some common standards.   All is coming to a peak moment with the stimulus package for national common standards. 

On April 17 Board Leadership has approved her [Superintendent Harrington] travel to visit with CCSSO and the expectation is that Utah might sign a Memorandum of Understanding that we might begin the dialogue.  It will not commit her [Superintendent Harrington] or the Board but would add Utah to the states that are interested in understanding on how we might develop common standards. 

It was clarified that the national standards would focus around language arts and math.”

(http://www.schools.utah.gov/board/Minutes/2009/090403.aspx - pg. -18048-)

8.        The Utah State School Board hastily and negligently signed our state up for the Common Core Initiative which included SBAC in an effort to receive money from a Federal grant.

EVIDENCE:  “Part of our Race to the Top Application was participation in a Common Assessment Consortium - Associate Superintendent Judy Park reported that states are scrambling to see who they want to align themselves with or partner with.  Because the federal government required we declare what consortium you were in we were under an impossible deadline.  To make it work we all agreed we would do a Non-binding MOU’s into a Consortium.  Utah along with many other states signed on to multiple consortiums.”  State School Board Meeting Feb. 2010

(http://www.schools.utah.gov/board/Minutes/2010/02-05-10.aspx  - pg. -18257-)

·          Three of the consortiums joined together forming SBAC and we later signed a binding MOU

(http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop-assessment/rtta2010smarterbalanced.pdfpg. ut-16)