Dear Governor Herbert...

Another Guest Post -- Christel is a much better writer than me so I will be posting a lot of her writings as we are working together to fight this.

April 5, 2012

Dear Governor Herbert and Christine Kearl,

Thank you for having Alisa XXXX, Renee XXXXX, Kevin XXXXX and me, Heber City citizens concerned about Common Core, to your office  Wednesday.

I contacted the legal department of the U.S.O.E. yesterday and found out that they have not conducted any legal analysis of Utah's entanglement in the Common Core Initiative and SBAC membership.  Will you please request that they do so immediately?
Lawyer Carol Lear told me she did not even have a copy of the document "Cooperative Agreement Between U.S.Department of Education and the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium."  I sent her the PDF and the link:http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop-assessment/sbac-cooperative-agreement.pdf

It is clear from that document and others that the federal government has trampled G.E.P.A. laws as well as the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution, by asserting authority, and without authority of law but via grant money and the dictates of  Arne Duncan, to set terms upon Utah and the SBAC, including requiring ongoing assessment status reporting, telephone conferencing, responses to requests from the U.S. DOE for information, written updates, and mandating that "across consortia" the testing methods and data collected from the tests will be coordinated.  This triangulates information and creates centralized data collection not only of math and reading scores, but of personally identifiable and unique student information.  I am sure the citizens of Utah would not vote for that.  It slipped under the radar, like so many other aspects of the Common Core initiative, because it was never brought under public or legislative scrutiny.  Superintendent Shumway, the State School Board, and the Governor, signed the documents that have bound us to this loss of sovereignty.  No one else knew it was happening.

I respectfully request that your legal team contact the U.S.O.E.'s legal team as soon as possible to discuss the educational sovereignty of our state and the financial obligations under which we will be burdened by remaining legally bound under CC and SBAC.   Have them read the Race to the Top Applications one and two; have them read the Cooperative Agreement between U.S. DOE and SBAC; have them read the WestEd Letter, which is in the binder of information we left with you, as well as being in the possession of Carol Lear.  That will be a good enough start to make it clear that these are not the assertions of fearful people but facts that actually bind Utah to sobering Federal controls.

I have been counseling with Jim Stergios of the Pioneer Institute, a non-federally funded Massachusetts think tank.  I asked him this: if Utah were to pull out of Common Core and the SBAC, would the consortium have to return any of Utah's portion of the consortium's assessment development money and other rewards, incentives and waivers to the Federal Government?

Stergios called this question is a good one, because it shows how confused and confusing the federal role has gotten on Race to the Top, the money, and commitments.  He said that if states have done what they promised they would do with the Race to the Top money received, then once it is spent there is no hook for the federal government to enforce reimbursement to the feds. If the money flowed to those purposes, the state cannot be forced to return money for a change in policy on standards.  The problem of irreversibility comes with adoption of the tests and/or acceptance of a federal waiver from NCLB.

He said that states that have not adopted the CCSS have come under much heightened scrutiny by the feds and also pressure from some foundations.  But he told me, too, that once the national tests are adopted, which happens in 2014, it will become incredibly hard to pull back out.  Also, if Utah or any state accepts an NCLB waiver, which comes with the requirement that states adopt national standards and tests, then pulling out will lead potentially to federal oversight of a vast number of districts in one’s state.

Please have your lawyers look into these questions of irreversibility.

On another topic, I wanted to answer the Governor's question about the letter he had received from Arne Duncan.  It is correct that the letter sounds innocuous.  However, a few concerns I have with the letter include these:  1) The Common Core Initiative has taken great pains to repeatedly claim that this movement has nothing to do with federal controls, is not a federal initiative, and is state-led.  This they claim despite the fact that they funded the whole movement, from funding the NGA and CCSSO, the groups who "started" it, funding the developer of the common standards and curriculum itself, Achieve,Inc., and funding the grants associated with the movement, notably ARRA-based Race To The Top.  Even the letter itself uses the words "not a federal initiative."  Arne Duncan chooses his words very deliberately.  Because he paid the NGO and CCSSO to do what he was not legally authorized to do, he can truthfully say the feds did not initiate this movement.  But they funded and directed it from the beginning and continue to do so. There is a difference between the phrase "federal initiative" and the phrase "federal control".  That is a very significant choice of words.  2) Secondly, the fact that Arne Duncan, not a group of state governors, clarifies policy, sends letters like this to you and to Superintendent Shumway, and sets the terms of cooperative agreements, reveals the fact that the U.S. Department of Education, not the NGA or CCSSO, is in control of and behind this initiative.  Otherwise, state leaders would be directing their questions about Common Core, and getting answers about Common Core, from the NGA and the CCSSO, the "state-led" leaders of this movement.

It would all make more sense if we had ever received educational funding for our memberships in these movements.  It would all make sense if we received anything at all from memberships in these movements; but all academic values in Common Core are in the public domain and we did not benefit academically from joining this movement.
I will attach much of what we gave you in the binder and the jumpdrive here, so that you can easily forward the evidence to your legal team as soon as possible. Thank you.

We look forward to meeting with you, Superintendent Shumway and your legal team together again next month. 

Sincerely,

Christel XXXXXXX

Heber City, Utah

Dear U.S.O.E. legal team,

 
Attached is the document I wrote to you about yesterday, and here is the link. http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop-assessment/sbac-cooperative-agreement.pdf
 
I continue to be shocked that our state's educational legal team has not even read the document.   Washington State, as the fiscal agent for Utah, should have been working very closely with Utah.  I have no doubt that the U.S. Department of Education kept their own copy very close at hand.
 
 Although I am not a lawyer, I did work as a full time grant writer for a consortium of Utah schools a few years back, and I do understand the wording and spirit of this cooperative agreement, which is in complete violation of G.E.P.A. laws and the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution, which clearly spell out the fact that the U.S. Department of Education has zero authority to assert regulations, mandates, rules, coordination efforts or supervisory efforts in any way over any state's, or group of states', educational systems.
 
It is interesting to note that this document cites not a law, but money --a grant I.D.-- as its authority to regulate.  Line one.
It is interesting to note that this document clearly shows that ONE man, Arne Duncan, claims this money-based authority.  Line two.
It is interesting to note that on pages 3 and 4 the federal government outlines the precise ways in which it intends to trample on states' automony and sovereignty, including making sure the SBAC gives updated reports and shares data with them, for educational purposes, of course; also, the U.S. DOE asserts that the SBAC and the PARCC testing arms of the Common Core must coordinate their efforts "across consortia," which triangulates efforts and creates an undeniable centralization of personal and unique data, including test scores and identifiable student data.  I do not think the citizens of Utah would vote for this.
 
I would ask you to send out notification to all school boards, districts and LEAs that it has been brought to your attention that Utah does not "have local control" because they truly believe your words and have not done their homework, trusting you to have done so.
 
As a legal team, I am sure you will make every effort to clear up this gross misstep, called "adopting the Common Core initiative" that our Utah State Superintendent of Schools Larry Shumway and the Utah School Board has made, in signing documents that forego state sovereignty and all common sense to legally bind our state under what Governor Herbert has aptly called "the ever-encroaching hand of the federal government".
 
Thank you for your time.
 
Christel Swasey
 

Christel is a friend of mine that has been researching with me into what Common Core really means for our state.  It is beyond just raising our standards.  
 

Blog posting from a State Delegate

As a delegate, I am spending a lot of time attending candidate presentations, usually two or three a day.  With the exception of Governor Herbert, all of the candidates I have interviewed are against the Common Core initiative that the Governer has committed Utah to participate in.  At one meeting last week, I was invited by a delegate to attend the State Board of Education meeting held yesterday, April 13th at the State School Board offices.  This seems to be an important issue that I felt I needed to explore further.

I went to the meeting after reading a press release from April 2, 2012, encouraging parents and educators to encourage the governer to reconsider the impact of the Common Core Initiative.  That information really concerned me.

At the beginning of the meeting, a board member spoke out strongly in support of their decision to adopt CC.  After a prayer and the pledge, they allowed individuals who had previously requested a place on the agenda to speak for two minutes.  Among those were three individuals requesting that they study the initiative further.  Then there were even more teachers who spoke glowingly about how wonderful the CC standards are.  The meeting was adjourned to reconvene in committees.  I felt the deck was definitely stacked in support CC.

I recommend that concerned citizens to go several websites to get more information about this initiative. www.Utahnsagainstcommoncore.com has a lot of information and a petition to sign.  Additional information is available atwww.keepeducationlocal.com and Commoncorefacts.blogspot.com.

As I see it, the big issue here is not the standards.  Everyone wants high educational standards.  It is that this initiative removes all local control and gives it to the federal government through state group pressure.  It is another method of federal takeover and the loss of state sovereignty and local control of our education system.  One of the most disturbing features to me is the tracking and reporting component.  The federal government will have very personal information about every student from kindergarten through high school.  Talk about a loss of privacy.  That is a huge issue for me.  And in a lengthy discussion with a teacher last night who hates the CC but feels pressure to "keep her mouth shut" the information is very inaccurate but will stick with the individual throughout his or her life.  She says they were given a touch tablet device to implement their testing.  However, there is no way to correct a mis touch or mistake.  That is outrageous.

Neal Mcluskey stated in an article, The Other Federal Takeover, plublished on March 27, 2012 by the Cato Institute that "classic propaganda techniques have been employed: repeat enough that the effort is completely 'state led and voluntary' and people will believe you."  That is precisely what our governor and the board of education are doing.

If we truly care about our children in the State of Utah, it looks like we will have to replace Gary Herbert as governor to get rid of our participatation in the Common Core Initiative.

I have so many other quotes I could include but there isn't time or space here.  Please check out the websites and get informed.  This is a huge chunk of our personal freedom that is being usurped once again by the federal government whose only job is to protect us.

Kristen Price, delegate from West Jordan, April 14, 2012

Education and the Workforce Committee - They Get it!

http://edworkforce.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=288087

http://edworkforce.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=287759

I came across the following write-up based on the above links.  Written by Donna G.





March 29, 2012







U. S. Congress – House Education and the Workforce Committee, Congressman John Kline, Chairman


By the Numbers: The Secretary of Education's Startling Record of Executive Overreach



WASHINGTON, D.C. – Yesterday, Education Secretary Arne Duncan testified before the House Committee on Education and the Workforce on the president’s budget and policy proposals for Fiscal Year 2013.



Since assuming his position in the president’s cabinet in January 2009, Secretary Duncan has proven to be an active and visible member of the administration. However, a look at some of the numbers defining his tenure in Washington reveals a startling record of executive overreach and meddling in state and local education decisions.



Number of Dollars the President Proposed for the Secretary’s Slush Fund (Known as Race to the Top) Since 2009: 7.45 billion
In 2009, Secretary Duncan announced a new grant competition to pressure states to undertake the administration’s preferred K-12 policies. The program has provided the secretary sole discretion over a multi-billion dollar slush fund of taxpayer dollars. The administration continues to expand Race to the Top’s size by declaring new phases of the original program and extending its reach into early childhood learning and higher education. So far, the president has proposed a total of $7.45 billion from taxpayers for the secretary to spend on his own policy priorities.



Number of Conditions the Secretary Imposed on States Seeking Access to the Secretary’s Slush Fund: ­­110
To be considered for a Race to the Top grant, states were strongly encouraged to enact specific “reforms” preferred by the secretary. Many states felt coerced to adopt the Common Core Standards and more than 100 other prescriptive federal requirements in order to compete for Race to the Top grants. Instead of operating a transparent competition, the secretary chose to base the program on bias, chance, and coercion.



Number of States Facing Delays in Implementing Phase 1 and 2 Race to the Top Grants: 9 Eleven states and the District of Columbia won grants under the first two phases of Race to the Top. Yet, according to an official assessment of the program, nearly all these “winners” are facing significant challenges, delaying implementation of the secretary’s preferred policies.



Number of Plans the Secretary Proposed to Sidestep Congressional Efforts to Reform No Child Left Behind: 1
Instead of working with Congress to rewrite elementary and secondary education law, the secretary has advanced a conditional waivers scheme that allows states to opt out of certain provisions in No Child Left Behind if they adopt his education agenda. This move embraces temporary changes that only exacerbate the challenges facing schools, and represents a clear overreach of the secretary’s authority.



Number of Conditions States Must Adopt to Get a Waiver From No Child Left Behind: ?
The secretary’s conditional waiver process has been shrouded in secrecy from the beginning. After receiving the first round of waiver applications, he sent letters “suggesting” states change their applications to improve their chances at obtaining a waiver. The whims of the secretary direct the waivers process, leaving states in the dark about the true cost and number of conditions the secretary may mandate.



Number of Times Department Sued for Overreach in the Last Year: 2
In July 2011, the Association of Private Sector Colleges and Universities filed a legal challenge to the department’s regulatory overreach in implementing its gainful employment regulations. In February 2012, the Electronic Privacy Information Center filed a lawsuit contesting the department’s effort to amend the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act without authority from Congress. A report last year by the Congressional Research Service raised concerns about the secretary’s authority to grant conditional waivers, leaving the department open to even more legal scrutiny.

The numbers above show a clear pattern of executive overreach, with no end in sight.

That’s why committee Republicans are advancing legislation to revamp No Child Left Behind and reign in the authority of the secretary of education. Together, the Student Success Act (H.R. 3989) and the Encouraging Innovation and Effective Teachers Act (H.R. 3990) will return control for K-12 education to state and local leaders, negating the need for the secretary to coerce states into following his education agenda.

Committee Republicans welcome the support of the secretary and the administration in advance lasting reform for America’s schools.

More Evidence

This was written by a friend of mine:

Evidence and Concerns

A rising number of teachers, parents and taxpayers are expressing concerns about Utah's adoption of the Common Core Initiative (CCI), its accompanying federal standards for states (CCSS) and its federally overseen and controlled testing arm (SBAC). Why?

1.   Utah did not seek out CCI; the initiative was presented as an eligibility enhancement by the U.S. Department of Education in its The Race To The Top grant. Joining the SBAC, too,  improved eligibility in the grant application. When Utah agreed to join the CCI and SBAC in 2009, the standards had not yet been written. 

EVIDENCE:    http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/faq.pdf

Utah joined both the CCI and the SBAC to win points toward getting the grant, and although Utah won no money, the extremely expensive and educationally restricting consequences of having agreed to sign up for CCI and SBAC remain.

2.  Utah has two new, conflicting sets of educational standards to juggle-- the Utah Common Core, to which we currently teach, and the CCSS, to which our tests are being written. Utah is not likely to stick with the Utah Common Core when testing begins based on the federal CCSS in 2014. The appendix to the SBAC states that the tests will be based on the CCSS (federal) standards, and the SBAC project manager, WestEd, has affirmed:

EVIDENCE:   “In order for this [testing] system to have a real impact within a state, the state will need to adopt the Common Core State Standards (i.e., not have two sets of standards.)” -April 2012 statement from WestEd Assessments and Standards Senior Research Associate

3.  There is no amendment process for the CCSS (federal standards) and withdrawing from the SBAC requires federal approval.

Right now there is now a window of opportunity for Utah to sever the ties that bind us to CCI and SBAC; if we wait, the state will be too financially invested and legally entangled to withdraw. Withdrawing from the SBAC requires not only Utah's, but also the consortium's, and also federal, approval.

EVIDENCE:  http://www.smarterbalanced.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Smarter-Balanced-Governance.pdf

4. There has been no cost analysis, legal analysis, legislative input or public input regarding CCI/SBAC.  Implementation of CCI has already begun in Utah schools; full implementation of the initiative and its tests will be completed in the 2014-2015 school year. 

An independent think tank in Massachusetts states that the cost over the first 7 years to states will be 16 billion dollars, or over 200 million per state, on top of regular educational needs. The Congressional Budget Office was not asked to do a cost analysis because asking would have pointed out that this was not a state-led initiative, contrary to the claims of its proponents. States' commitments to CCI require billions of dollars in implementation and maintenance spending, money that competes with already-stretched educational budgets.

EVIDENCE: http://www.pioneerinstitute.org/pdf/120222_CCSSICost.pdf 

5. The Common Core initiative represents an overreach of federal power into personal privacy as well as into state educational autonomy. There will be personal student information collected via the centralized testing-data collection, accessible to the Executive Branch.  This individualized data collection includes both academic and psychometric data about children, which is illegal in Utah.

EVIDENCE:   SBAC assessments' inclusion of  psychometric testing is a violation of Utah law per code section 53A-13-302.

Both of the CCI's testing arms (SBAC and PARCC) must coordinate tests and share information "across consortia" as well as giving the U.S. Department of Education phone responses, written status updates and access to information "on an ongoing basis." Data will be triangulated with control, oversight and centralization by the Executive Branch (U.S. Dept. of Education). 

EVIDENCE:  "Cooperative Agreement between the U.S. DOE and the SBAC" http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop-assessment/sbac-cooperative-agreement.pdf

The U.S. Department of Education (through the America COMPETES Act, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, and the Race to the Top competition) has required the states to develop massive databases about school children.

The Department has eviscerated the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) by issuing new regulations that allow nonconsensual tracking and sharing of this personal data with other federal agencies, with government agencies in other states, and with private entities.

EVIDENCE: ____

6. Utah has ceded her voice and educational sovereignty because Utah's top educational leaders are persuaded that having standards and testing in common with other states matters more than holding onto the state's right to raise standards sky-high. To Utah education leaders, the right to soar seems a freedom not worth fighting for, and maintaining state educational sovereignty is not a priority.

EVIDENCE:  " The whole point is to get to a place where there is a 'common core' - that would mean the same standards for all the states that adopt it.  If the states had the freedom to 'disagree' and 'change' them, I guess they would no longer be 'common'." -April 2012 statement from USOE legal department

7.  The effort to nationalize and centralize education results in severe loss of state control of education and pushes states into a minimalist, common set of standards.  Dr. Sandra Stotsky, an official member of the CCSS Validation Committee, refused to sign off on the adequacy of the standards and testified that "Common Core has yet to provide a solid evidentiary base for its minimalist conceptualization of college readiness--and for equating college readiness with career readiness. Moreover… it had no evidence on both issues."

The Common Core standards are experimental, expensive, controversial, and have not been piloted.

EVIDENCE: http://pioneerinstitute.org/pdf/100520_emperors_new_clothes.pdf)

Common Core standards are not considered among the best standards in the nation, and there are clearly superior standards.  Additionally, the CCI robs states of the sovereign right to raise state standards in the future. There's no provision for  amending the CCSS federal standards, were we to choose to still remain bound by them.

The Common Core English standards reduce the study of literature in favor of informational texts designed to train children in a school-to-work agenda. The unsophisticated composition of those selected to write the Common Core Standards and the lack of transparency about the standards-writing process also raises concerns.

CCSS states a goal to promote “career and college ready standards,” a euphemism for “school-to-work” programs, diluting individual choice by directing children where to go and what to learn. They make no distinction between 2-year, 4-year or vocational standards.

8. Common Core has not proven to be state-led nor strictly voluntary; the U.S. Department of Education Secretary rages against states who reject the Common Core Initiative. 

When South Carolina Governor Haley backed away from the “voluntary” CCSS, she drew a sharp response from Arne Duncan, the federal Secretary of Education.  Duncan also publicly insulted all Texas students on television, saying "I feel very badly for Texas school children," following Texas Governor Perry's refusal to join the CC initiative. (Yet Texas math standards are higher than Common Core standards.)  Messages in public letters from Duncan to Utah leaders conflict with multiple, legally binding documents signed by his team at the U.S. Department of Education.

EVIDENCE:  Utah's State School Superintendent admits that the U.S. Dept. of Education is already putting requirements on the state of Utah associated with the Common Core standards.

9.  The Common Core Initiative, far from being state-designed, is the product of the U.S. Department of Education funding and directing special interest groups (NGA, CCSSO, NCEE, Achieve, Inc., WestEd, and others) via federal grants.

EVIDENCE: http://www.wested.org/cs/we/print/docs/we/fund.htm

http://www.edweek.org/media/nga.pdf

10.  The Common Core Initiative violates fundamental laws that protect states' independence.  Several national laws state that the federal government may not exercise any control of educational decisions.

But the Federal Government’s creation of national curricular materials, through contractors, and its control and oversight of testing and data collection, and its tests written to federal, nationalized standards, are in violation of three existing laws: NCLB, the Department of Education Organization Act, and the General Education Provisions Act; States have a responsibility to protect the balance of powers granted in the Constitution.

Utah has the responsibility to protect its rights to make educational decisions without federal input or control.

 11.  Transparency and  public debate about Common Core are lacking.  Utah educational leaders have a responsibility to encourage public discussion and lively debate about Common Core, because the initiative will impact children, taxpayers and teachers for a long time to come.

A spiral of silence has descended upon Utah educators, many of whom fear losing their jobs if they speak up against Common Core.  There is intense pressure to agree with Common Core Initiative at the State School Board level as well. Applicants for School Board membership must take a survey before the Board selects its pool of potential candidates. The survey asks: "Do you support Common Core?"

How could one with a differing view ever be elected? 

Evidence

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 asked for 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.pdf pg. ut-16)

Please join other parents and teachers in requiring answers to these questions from our state educational leaders:

 • Why was no cost analysis done before Utah adopted Common Core? http://www.pioneerinstitute.org/pdf/120222_CCSSICost.pdf

 • Why was there never public, teacher or legislative input used to consider CommonCore? http://pioneerinstitute.org/pdf/120216_Testimony_Stergios_SC.pdf

 • Since all the academic elements of the Common Core are in public domain, what is the purpose of Utah remaining tied to the CCI and the SBAC?

 • Documents show discrepancies between what the Federal Department of Education says in public letters and what the Department has bound Utah to, in dense, legally binding contractual agreements and grant applications. These show Utah has lost control of state education to federal control. http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop-assessment/sbac-cooperative-agreement.pdf

 • Why are there two sets of standards, the Utah Common Core and the federal Common Core State Standards? Why do we teach with one and get tested on the other? http://whatiscommoncore.wordpress.com/2012/04/06/what-is-wested-and-why-should-you-care/ 

 • Why is there no amendment process to change or disagree with the federal CCSS that Utah contracted to join?

 • Why did Utah join Common Core when evidence shows some aspects of CCI actually lowers educational standards? http://whatiscommoncore.wordpress.com/2012/04/09/expert-testimony-about-common-core/

 • What did Texas, Virginia, South Carolina and other free-thinking states see in the CCI that caused them to refuse to join? http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2010/03/25/alaska-texas-reject-common-core-standards

 • Is there any law states that the Federal Government can withhold educational funding from states if they refuse to adopt Common Core/SBAC? http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/detail/the-road-to-a-national-curriculum-the-legal-aspects-of-the-common-core-standards-race-to-the-top-and-conditional-waivers 

• What benefit did Common Core give to Utah that we didn’t already have access to via public domain?

• Why won't Larry Shumway, Judy Park, the USOE legal department, or Arne Duncan answer real questions with real answers instead of unsubstantiated rhetoric?

• Why did PTA accept a 2 million dollar donation that was conditional upon advocating for Common Core?

• Why does the State School Board weed out potential board candidates with the survey question: Are You For Common Core?