Rebuttal to the USBE Common Core Presentation

7/28/2019 Rebuttal to the USBE Common Core Presentation

1/31

Common Core Standards are just one aspect of a much larger education reform agenda[1]. The State Fiscal Stabilization

Fund[2], Race to the Top grant[3], Race to the Top for Assessments[4], and No Child Left Behind Waiver all share thesame 4 reform tenets. Namely, common standards and assessments, accountability (teacher/principal evaluations-school

grading), longitudinal and interoperable data systems, and turning around lowest performing schools.[5][1] http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/education/k-12

[2] http://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/leg/recovery/factsheet/stabilization-fund.html

[3] http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/executive-summary.pdf -page 2

[4] http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop-assessment/executive-summary-042010.pdf - page 5 & 6

[5] http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/education/k-12

Slide-by-slide

Response to Utah State Board of EducationCommon Core Presentation

by Utahns Against Common Core

www.utahnsagainstcommoncore.com


2/31

These gures are from a study done by the Georgetown

Center for Education and the Workforce which is largely

funded by the Lumina Foundation (Lumina Foundation

is a conversion foundation created in mid-2000 as USA

Group, Inc., the nations largest private guarantor and

administrator of education loans) and the Bill & MelindaGates Foundation (called partners.)

Similar gures have been prepared for every state.

Without disputing the importance of higher education,

it seems wise to question the inuence of a few, well-

funded and ideaologically-aligned reformers on the

policy direction for public education of nearly every statein the nation.

The U.S. has supposedly been a nation at risk due to

the state of education for decades.

The Common Core standards have never been pilot

tested and have no guarantee of being any more effective

than the failed, federally-backed reforms of the past that

have served to grow bureaucracy, but not achievement.

Question:Does the perceived urgency ofthese reforms justify circumventing processes of

responsible and representative governance like

cost analysis and well-publicized public hearings?


3/31

There is a place for judicious use

of testing, but many are concerned

that results of so called high-

stakes and standardized test

scores and state rankings are beingmisapplied to public policy... i.e.

tying teacher pay to test scores which

incentivizes teaching to the test, and

disincentivizes teachers to welcome

students who dont t testing norms

in their classrooms. Or, a trend

observed in other states where policy,

and not parents or students, dictates

participation in standardized testing

and tracking (children with special

needs, homeschoolers, opt-outs.)

Campbells Law:

The more any quantitative social indicator is used for social decision-making, the more subject it will be

to corruption pressures and the more apt it will be to distort and corrupt the social processes it is intended

to monitor.


4/31

(Utah Code Title 62A Chapter 4a Section 201)

(1) (a) Under both the United States Constitution and the constitution of this state, a parent

possesses a fundamental liberty interest in the care, custody, and management of the parents

children.(d) The state recognizes that:

(i) a parent has the right, obligation, responsibility, and authority to raise, manage, train, edu-

cate, provide for, and reasonably discipline the parents children; and

(ii) the states role is secondary and supportive to the primary role of a parent.(e) It is the public policy of this state that parents retain the fundamental right and duty to exer-

cise primary control over the care, supervision, upbringing, and education of their children.

Question:How does theschool board notify, inviteor engage Utah parents

regarding major policy

decisions?


5/31

Federal

Grants

National GovernorsAssociation**

Council of Chief State

School Ofcers**

input diluted

with that of other

states

Private Businesses

and foundations

with no lobbying restrictions

Governor has no constitutionalauthority to set standards

X

Question: What part of the Utah Constitution or statute authorizes this?

** Not constitutional representative bodies.


6/31

Questions:How would the USBE rate their effectiveness in facilitating citizen participation in the Common Core adoption process?

A few states have paused their Common Core implementation to do an independent cost analysis. Wouldnt this be wise

in terms ofeconomic prosperity?

Does calling parents who dont agree with policy decisions Common Core Crazies or C3s in teacher training

events represent the USBEs commitment to strong social and community values?

How does the Common Core State Standards Initiative demonstrate a commitment to constitutional government?

(See owchart on previous page.)


7/31

The rst three bullet points are goals, not strategies.

There is no evidence that Common Core, or standards in general, improve graduation rates or increase the attainment of

postsecondary degrees.

The last two bullet points are ways to measure progress toward a goal or enforce a curriculum.

So..... the academic achievement (and consequently the economic prosperity as we are led to believe) of Utah depends

on a set of nationally homogenous and untested academic standards?


8/31

Question: Isnt a more homogenous market for text publishers likelyto further narrow text book choices in a market that was already dominated

by the largest states?


9/31

ACT, and the College Board (SAT) helped write the standards

along with Achieve and Americas Choice which are closely

afliated with the largest educational materials/services

company Pearson. Student Achievement Partners were hired as

consultants and are generally credited as the chief architects of

the CCSS with the others giving input.

The members of the mathematics Work Group are:

Sara Clough, Director, Elementary and Secondary School Programs, Development,Education Division, ACT, Inc.

Phil Daro, Senior Fellow, Americas Choice

Susan K. Eddins, Educational Consultant, Illinois Mathematics and Science Academy(Retired)

Kaye Forgione, Senior Associate and Team Leader for Mathematics, Achieve

John Kraman, Associate Director, Research,Achieve

Marci Ladd, Mathematics Consultant, The College Board & Senior Manager and

Mathematics Content Lead, Academic Benchmarks

William McCallum, University Distinguished Professor and Head, Department ofMathematics, The University of Arizona &Mathematics Consultant, Achieve

Sherri Miller, Assistant Vice President, Educational Planning and Assessment System

(EPAS) Development, Education Division, ACT, Inc.

Ken Mullen, Senior Program Development AssociateMathematics, Elementary and

Secondary School Programs, Development, Education Division, ACT, Inc.

Robin OCallaghan, Senior Director, Mathematics, Research and Development, The

College Board

Andrew Schwartz, Assessment Manager, Research and Development, The College

Board

Laura McGiffert Slover, Vice President, Content and Policy Research, Achieve

Douglas Sovde, Senior Associate, Mathematics, Achieve Natasha Vasavada, Senior Director, Standards and Curriculum Alignment Services,Research and Development, The College Board

Jason Zimba, Faculty Member, Physics, Mathematics, and the Center for the Ad-

vancement of Public Action, Bennington College and Cofounder, Student Achievement

Partners

Members of the English-language Arts Work Group are:

Sara Clough, Director, Elementary and Secondary School Programs, Development,

Education Division, ACT, Inc.

David Coleman, Founder, Student Achievement Partners

Sally Hampton, Senior Fellow for Literacy, Americas Choice

Joel Harris, Director, English Language Arts Curriculum and Standards, Research andDevelopment, The College Board

Beth Hart, Senior Assessment Specialist, R&D, The College Board John Kraman, Associate Director, Research, Achieve

Laura McGiffert Slover, Vice President, Content and Policy Research, Achieve

Nina Metzner, Senior Test Development AssociateLanguage Arts, Elementary and

Secondary School Programs, Development, Education Division, ACT, Inc.

Sherri Miller, Assistant Vice President, Educational Planning and Assessment System(EPAS) Development, Education Division, ACT, Inc.

Sandy Murphy, Professor Emeritus, University of California Davis

Jim Patterson, Senior Program Development AssociateLanguage Arts, Elementaryand Secondary School Programs, Development, Education Division, ACT, Inc.

Sue Pimentel, Co-Founder, StandardsWork; English Language Arts Consultant,

Achieve

Natasha Vasavada, Senior Director, Standards and Curriculum Alignment Services,Research and Development, The College Board

Martha Vockley, Principal and Founder, VockleyLang, LLC

http://www.nga.org/cms/home/news-room/news-releases/page_2009/col2-content/main-

content-list/title_common-core-state-standards-development-work-group-and-feedback-

group-announced.html


10/31

When I reviewed that large and growing body of knowledge offered

by the NGA, I found that it was not large, and in fact built mostly on one

report, Benchmarking for Success, created by the NGA and the CCSSO, the

same groups that created these standards; Hardly independent research. The

Benchmarking report has over 135 end notes, some of which are repetitive

references. Only four of the cited pieces of evidence could be considered

empirical studies related directly to the topic of national standards and

student achievement. The remaining citations were newspaper stories,

armchair magazine articles, op-ed pieces, book chapters, notes from

telephone interviews, and several tangential studies.

--Christopher Tienken, Ed.D.Common Core State Standards: An Example of Data-less Decision Making

AASA Journal of Scholarship and Practice,

Vol. 7, No. 4 Winter 2011

Common Core is the product of an extragovernmental cartel of state leaders

(aka state-led) and special interests who had no constitutional commission to

affect nationwide education policy in the way that they did.

CCSSI has never indicated the name of a country with which we are

benchmarked. It lists no references showing that. All it says, over and over

again, is that CCs standards were informed by or CCSSI consulted with

the X, Y, and Z. Neither of those phrases means benchmarked.


11/31

The NGA, CCSSO and Achieve all rely on federal grants for a signicant portion of their funding.

What is the danger of a federally controlled education system that makes state-led sound better?

Those who oppose federal control typically oppose a concentration of power that would dictate one

set of educational ideals for everyone, to the exclusion of others.

Nationally aligned standards create a national market for curriculum that favors the biggest

publishers and content providers which could translate into fewer choices.

Accelerating the development of the State Longitudinal Databases (SLDS) was one of the

four assurances states had to make, along with adopting common standards and assessments,

to receive stimulus funds. Having common standards across states improves the statistical

comparability of student data as collected in the SLDS.

Just as states databases were expanding, the US Department of Ed altered the FERPA privacy law

to loosen restrictions on data sharing and to weaken parental consent requirements. (EPIC v. The

U.S. Department of Education) It is not part of the Common Core, but still a key concern among

those discussing the interconnected reforms the educational transformation as the USBE calls

it spurred by the stimulus.

Race to the Top was one of the programs funded by the stimulus and according to audio of state

school board meetings was a driving factor behind Utahs initial adoption of the Common Core

Standards. Utah applied to both rounds of the grant competition, but in the end was not awarded

funds.

And one thing we all agreed on when we were there, because I hear what youre saying Kim, is

that we do not want to call them national standards. Now I know thats, its word smithing, but

the, this is an effort of the states, not the federal government- not the federal government. And we

are making sure that is very clearly delineated.--Brenda Hales, May 1, 2009 State Board Meeting @12:50


12/31

Question: Our previous Math standards were rated A-and the Common Core standards were rated as A-

How is that a signicant upgrade?

Utahs standards are briey stated and usually clear, making them easier to read and follow than Common Core. In addition, the high school content

is organized so that standards addressing specic topics, such as quadratic functions, are grouped together in a mathematically coherent way. The

organization of the Common Core is more difcult to navigate, in part because standards dealing with related topics sometimes appear separately

rather than together.

--Fordhams conclusion after comparing Utahs previous math standards to Common Corehttp://edexcellencemedia.net/publications/2010/201007_state_education_standards_common_standards/Utah.pdf


13/31

All of the standards writing and discussions were sealed by condentiality agreements, and held in private. While Linn*says six states sent intensive teacher and staff feedback, committee members werent sure what effect their advice had, said Mark

Bauerlein, an Emory University professor who sat on a feedback committee.

I have no idea how much inuence committee members had on nal product. Some of the things I advised made their way intothe standards. Some of them didnt. Im not sure why or how, he said. He said those who would know were the standards lead

writers: David Coleman and Susan Pimentel in English, and Jason Zimba, Phil Daro, and William McCallum in math.

When government agencies solicit public comments on proposed policies, standard procedure is for the agency to publish all

comments submitted and a response. This didnt happen with Common Core.

http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2013/06/07/ve-people-wrote-state-led-common-core

* Dane Linn, NGA education director at the time


14/31

Question: Are any of the professionals listed hererecipients of grants to fund the creation of Common Core

aligned materials? Do any of them work with the USOE and if

so, in what capacity?


15/31

Dr. Stotsky and Dr. Milgram were two

of ve members of the CCSS validation

committee who refused to sign off on

the standards. Hundreds of other experts

have also expressed criticisms, but

because Stotsky and Milgram took part

in the CCSS process, these are two of the

most often cited.

Both Dr. Milgram and Dr. Wu were involved

with the 2007 Utah math standards. Dr. Milgram

provided the analysis of our prior D rated

standards which compelled the creation of new

A- rated standards. Dr. Wu was chosen as the

external reviewer to ensure the 2007 standards

were clear, coherent, and comprehensive. Dr. Wumade several important recommendations. The

USOE implemented none of them, but in this case

they elevate this tepid statement about CCSS to

support their claim that CCSS is better than our

previous standards.

Utah had some of the best math standards in the

country prior to Common Core and they may

have been even better had they implemented Dr.

Wus suggestions.

Now Drs. Wu and Milgram disagree on points of

Common Core which highlights the fact that there

is widespread disagreement on the standards. The

validation committee never met to discuss the

nal version of the standards and never voted on

the draft they received. They were asked to sign a

prepared statement.

Dr. Stotsky was a Senior Associate Commissioner for the

Massachusetts Department of Education and led the revising state

standards writing board from 1999-2003. She was on a NAEP

committee in 2003-2004 (her standards came before her association

with NAEP.) Her 14-page curriculum vitae is accessible at the

University of Arkansas website where it is clear that these positions are

just two of many distinctions indicative of someone whose expertise is

widely sought and respected.


16/31

In 2007 the Gates & Broad Foundations give $60 million to create a sweeping public awareness and action campaign

that will mobilize the public and presidential candidates around solutions for the countrys education crisis 1

Two former staff of Gates Foundation were hired by Obamas U.S. Education Department and were granted waivers by

the Administration from its revolving-door policy limiting involvement with former employers 2

14 out of the 16 Race to the Top grant recipients were given nancial aid from Gates Foundation to pay consultants who

helped prepare their RttT applications 3

Between January 2008 and November 2010, the Gates Foundation had contributed more than $35-million to the Council

of Chief School Ofcers and the National Governors Association Center 4

In February 2008 Gates gave $12.6-million to Achieve 5

$3 Million to Thomas B. Fordham Institute to review Common Core 6

$1 million to PTA to organize parent endorsement of Common Core 7

$3 million to ASCD (professional development for educators) to promote Common Core with educators 8

$20 Million in Grants for projects aligned with Common Core 9

$3 Million to Pearson for digital instruction resources for Common Core 10

ALEC shelves anti-Common Core model legislation after receiving $376,635 grant from the Gates Foundaton 11

(See last page for references.)

As a private entity that doesnt answer to voters, Gates can back initiatives that are politically dicey for the Obama Administration, such as

uniform standards, says Jack Jennings, director of the Center on Education Policy. In the past, states rights advocates have blocked federal

efforts for a national curriculum. Gates was able to do something the federal government couldnt do, Jennings says.

the [Gates] foundations agenda is very much aligned with the Obama Administration agenda. We partner with them on a whole host of

things.

-- Peter Cunningham, spokesman for Secretary Arne Duncan

BusinessWeek Cover Story July 2010http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_30/b4188058281758.htm#p4

It is not unfair to say that the Gates Foundations agenda has

become the countrys agenda in education, said Michael Petrilli,vice president for national programs and policy at the Thomas B.

Fordham Institute in Washington, D.C.Puget Sound Business Journal

http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/stories/2009/05/18/story2.html?page=all


17/31

CA and MA did have higher standards.

This fact is not changed just because the

respective school boards decided to switch

to Common Core.

How did Fordham actually rank them?

Massachusetts ELA A-

Common Core ELA B+

Massachusettss existing standards are

clearer, more thorough, and easier to read

than the Common Core standards.

Californias Math Standards A

Common Core Math A-

Californias standards are exceptionally

clear and well presented, and indeed

represent a model for mathematically

sound writing. They are further supported

by excellent peripheral material, including

the Framework that provides clear and

detailed guidance on the standards. Taken

together, these enhancements make the

standards easier to read and follow thanCommon Core.

Californias standards could well serve

as a model for internationally competitive

national standards.

http://www.edexcellence.net/publications/the-

state-of-state-of-standards-and-the-common-core-

in-2010.html


18/31

Curriculum standards dont tell teachers how to teach in the

same way that a high jump bar doesnt tell a jumper how to

jump. You could theoretically jump over a high jump bar in

whatever way you would like; but because of how the jump is

structured there is a clear advantage to doing the old Fosbury

Flop.

It is clear from documents on the Common Core website and

from the discourse throughout the country that these new

standards encourage constructivist teaching practices.

James Shuls

Education Polity Analyst, Show-Me Institute,

Ph.D Education Policy

former 1st and 5th grade teacherhttp://jaypgreene.com/2013/03/21/constructive-criticism-for-common-

core-constructivism-deniers/

The Secondary Math 1 book created by the USOE seems

to be a good example of how constructivist teaching practices

are emphasized as Mr. Shuls suggests above.

I believe the Common Core marks the cessation of educational standards improvement in the United States. No state has

any reason left to aspire for rst-rate standards, as all states will be judged by the same mediocre national benchmark...-- Zeev Wurman,

Chief Software Architect MonolithIC, former policy advisor to U.S. Department of Ed, holds 7 patents

http://educationnext.org/the-common-core-math-standards/


19/31

http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/introduction/key-design-consideration

The 70/30 split favoring informational text over classic literature bythe 12th grade is an inappropriate interpretation of the NAEP testing

framework (see chart below) applied backward to standards, and has

no basis in practice for increasing college-ready literacy.

In other words, this is essentially an experiment being implemented

in 47 states at the same time. As the USOE explained:

The effect of implementing standards cannot be researched before

they have been implemented. They must be implemented rst beforewe can conduct research on their effectiveness.

-- Complete Resource Guide on Utahs Core Standardshttp://www.schools.utah.gov/core/Utah-Core-Standards/

CommonCoreResourceGuide.aspx (page 24)

This is a grand experiment not only for standards but for policy. The

U.S. has never had uniform standards across states. Because it affects

the majoirity of students nationwide, this is a more signicant shift

than a routine review of standards in any single state and therefore

worthy of greater scrutiny.

It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single

courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory;

and try novel social and economic experiments

without risk to the rest of the country.

--Justice Louis C. Brandeis


20/31

Federal Register, denitions for ARRA (stimulus) Funds(July 29, 2009 p. 8)

Common set of K12 standards means a set of content standards

that dene what students must know and be able to do, and that areidentical across all States in a consortium. Notwithstanding

this, a State may supplement the common standards with additional

standards, provided that the additional standards do not exceed

15 percent of the States total standards for that content area.

ESEA Flexibility Waiver DenitionsPage 18 of Utahs Flexibility Waiver* refers to career and college-

ready standards as dened by part (1) of the USDOE denitions.The referenced part (1) leads to the following description:

Standards that are common to a signicant number of Statesmeans standards that are substantially identical across all States in a

consortium that includes a signicant number of States. A State maysupplement such standards with additional standards, provided that

the additional standards do not exceed 15 percent of the Statestotal standards for a content area.

ESEA Flexibility Waiver Policy Doc (page 6, parts 1 & 6)

http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/esea-exibility/index.html

Utah State School Board Minutes (Attachment 4 of UT Waiver):

To adopt the Common Core Standards, a state agrees to accept all

of the standards as they are written. Each participating state is to use

the Common Core Standards as a framework for their own Reading/

Language Arts and Mathematics core curriculum. A state may add

up to 15% more standards.http://www.schools.utah.gov/board/Minutes/2010/08-06-10.aspx

CCSSI Final Implementation Guide (page 22)

While states will not be considered to have adopted the common

core if any individual standard is left out, states are allowed to

augment the standards with an additional 15% of content that a

state feels is imperative. . A literal interpretation by states of the

15% guideline (that is 15% added at every grade level and in each

subject) would undermine the very reason the states developed the

Common Core State Standards in the rst place.http://www.achieve.org/les/FINAL-CCSSImplementationGuide.pdf

The above paragraph is from the copyright page of the CCSSI Public License.

It says copy, distribute and display. It does NOT say anything about

customization. http://www.corestandards.org/public-license

On the same page it also says: NGA Center/CCSSO shall be acknowledged

as the sole owners and developers of the Common Core State Standards, and

no claims to the contrary shall be made.

Question: If this was a state-led process by publicly-funded state agents,how do two private trade organizations own the copyright?

* http://www2.ed.gov/policy/eseaex/ut.pdf


21/31

May 1, 2009Utah State School Board Discusses Memorandum of Agreement

The reason why this has become more on the front burner is

because the NGA and CCSSO have received some funding to go

ahead and start developing Common Core.

Theyre all willing to do this for free but only if we sign on byMonday. No pressure there.

Now when I took a look at background material, the Achieve

material, theres not a huge amount of difference between our

standards and what they are going to use as a base anyway. And Im

going to estimate that about 92% of our standards are the same as

those standards right now. So it doesnt concern me that it will be so

wildly out of line that we couldnt live with it.

June 4, 2009Board encouraged to adopt CC standards on rst reading

@19:34

Brenda Hales: We know that the Board hasnt had time to look

so if the Board adopts [the Common Core State Standards] on rst

reading that gives you time the next month and a half to review it for

second and third in August.

Board Chair: Laurel, our expectation then is to have the Board

vote for it on rst reading? Right?Laurel: On rst reading and then well have second...

Board Chair: Does everyone understand that? So even though

the committee approved it on rst reading, its coming to you on rst

reading and then well do second and third reading in August. Is that

clear as mud?

Larry Shumway: The reason for that is there is sort of a strategic

reasons as we may nd ourselves in an interview relative to our Race

to the Top application.

UT State School Board Meeting Audio


22/31

February 13, 2009

Reinvestment & Recovery Act Passed with

$100 Billion for Educationhttp://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/leg/recovery/implementation.html

April 3, 2009

Theres a great momentum behind NATIONAL common standards.

I would say its the expectation of the Secretary [Arne Duncan] that

we move into that environment in the next two or three years.-Audio from UT State School Board Meeting

The Utah State Board of Education is accepting

written comments about the Utah Core Standards from

Monday, April 23 at 8 a.m. to Friday, April 27 2012 at 5 p.m.https://www.facebook.com/events/408552669169845/

June 2, 2010

Final version of the Common Core Standards released

June 4, 2010

Board encouraged to adopt CC standards on rst reading for RttT process

Wasnt this the real

public comment periodthat was publicized to

citizens, 22 months

after the CCSS were

adopted?

Isnt that why this

due process

disclaimer is here?


23/31

April 29, 2009

House Education and Labor Committee hearingAs reported online by Alyson Klein at Education Week

http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2009/04/29/31standards.h28.html

T. Kenneth James, the commissioner ofeducation in Arkansas and the president of the Council

of Chief State School Ofcers, agreed with Rep.McKeon that state leaders are likely to be much

more wary about a movement toward common

standards, if it appears to come with a federalmandate attached.

But he said Congress and the U.S. Department

of Education should focus on using the bully pulpitto help bolster the movement and consider providing

federal resources, particularly for assessments. I

think it can be done without the perception that the

federal government is driving the train, Mr. Jamessaid.

Road to a National CurriculumRobert S. Eitel

former Deputy General Counsel of the U.S. Dept of Ed

Kent D. Talbert

former General Counsel of the U.S. Dept of Ed

...the Department is evading these prohibitions

and using proxies to cement national standards andassessments. (p.5)The Department has simply paid others to do that

which it is forbidden to do. (p.18)

I hate to be so blunt, but the U.S. Department of Education is violating three

federal laws, Stergios said. And the fact is that state and local ofcials whoare part of the national standards and assessment efforts are compliant in

the breaking of these federal laws.

Pioneer Institute Executive Director Jim Stergioshttp://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2012/03/03/report-common-core-poses-legal-

questionsGeneral Education Provisions Act

Department of Education Organization Act

Elementary and Secondary Education Act


24/31

The state is outsourcing a core

state function to an outside

organization that is then

outsourcing to other organizations,

and you cant have the parental

and legislator input you normally

should.

--Bill Allison

editorial director of the Sunlight Foundation

(a government transparency watchdog)http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2013/01/03/tax-

sponsored-common-core-meetings-closed-public

Question:How is thedelegation of a core function

to the Board of Regents

unconstitutional but delegationto the NGA and CCSSO (D.C.

based trade organizations) not

unconstitutional?


25/31

There are Common Core State Standards and Common

Core Assessments... both part of the rst of four assurancesthat the U.S. Department of Education has asked states to

make through the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund, Race to

the Top programs, and ESEA Flexibility Waivers.

For example:

Under the Race to the Top guidelines, states seeking funds

will be pressed to implement four core, interconnected

reforms. We sometimes call them the four assurances, and

those assurances are what we are going to be looking for

from states, districts, and their local partners in reform.

... Thats why we are looking for Race to the Top states

to adopt common, internationally-benchmarked K-12

standards that truly prepare students for college and careers.To speed this process, the Race to the Top program is

going to set aside $350 million to competitively fund thedevelopment of rigorous, common state assessments.

-- Secretary of Education Arne Duncan

announcing the Race to the Tophttp://www2.ed.gov/news/speeches/2009/07/07242009.html

That $350 Million was awarded to two testing consortia,

the SBAC and PARCC. The U.S. Department of Edsubsequently established a federal review panel for these

tests.http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/curriculum/2013/04/common_

assessment_groups_to_undergo_new_federal_review_process.html

With the approval of the Utah State School Board,

Governor Herbert and Superintendent Shumway initally

signed on to the federally-funded SBAC testing consortium,

but following well-founded criticisms from Utah citizens

the School Board Utah later withdrew.


26/31

AIR is also one of the worlds largest behavioral and

social science research organizations.

AIR is the ofcial assessment partner of the

SBAC, the tesing consortium from which Utah has

withdrawn.

AIR is a member of the Clinton Global Initiative

with the goal to help our world move beyond the

current state of globalization to a more integrated

global community of shared benets, responsibilities,

and values.- See more at: http://www.air.org/expertise/

index/?fa=view&tid=243#sthash.ozT4YnDU.dpuf

AIR uses advanced statistical methods to get the

most information from the data.

- See more at: http://www.air.org/focus-area/educational-assess

ment/?id=17#sthash.9NA1fndk.dpuf

Utah law used to provide for parents to have access to review all

curriculum and assessments. This is not possible with computer

adaptive tests.

By what criteria would this panel judge test questions?

Dr. Menlove has admitted to Alpine School District Board Member

Brian Halladay that those 15 parents may have to review 100,000

questions in a 6 week period. Is that physically possible?


27/31

Stabilization Fund Description: The U.S. Department of Education will award governors approximately $48.6 billion by formula underthe SFSF [State Fiscal Stabilization Fund] program in exchange for a commitment to advance essential education reforms to benet students

from early learning through post-secondary education, including: college and career-ready standards and high-quality, valid and reliable

assessments for all students; development and use of pre-K through post-secondary and career data systems; increasing teacher effectiveness

and ensuring an equitable distribution of qualied teachers; and turning around the lowest-performing schools.http://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/leg/recovery/factsheet/stabilization-fund.html

It has been recommended that the forthcoming reauthorization of No Child Left Behind support the ability of state longitudinal data systems

to link appropriate and pertinent information across the P-20 education pipeline and across state agencies.http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/action-issues/federal-policy/

Expanded student data collection was one of the four assurances, along with adopting common standards, required of States to receive State

Fiscal Stabilization Funds, participate in the Race to the Top grant competition, or apply for an ESEA exibility waiver. Utah had already been

working on this, but had to report its progress toward 10 essential elements to the federal government as a condition of funding.


28/31

Fordham Center on Law and Information Policy

October 28, 2009

CHILDRENS EDUCATIONAL RECORDS AND PRIVACY:

A study of elementary and secondary school state reporting systems

Among state departments of education there has been a

growing trend to establish statewide longitudinal databases

of all K-12 children within a state in order to track students

progress and change over time. This trend is accompanied by

a movement to create uniform data collection systems so that

each states student data systems are interoperable with one

another. These two trends raised privacy concerns that we

examine in this study...we were concerned with the ease

with which individual interoperable state data systems

could potentially be combined to create a nationaldatabase of all K-12 children.

...We found that most states collected information in excess

of what is needed for the reporting requirements of the No

Child Left Behind Act and what appeared needed to evaluate

overall school progress.

http://law.fordham.edu/center-on-law-and-information-policy/14769.htm

Questions:What data is collected for a single studentin Utah between the SIS, the SLDS, UTREX, Utah Futures,ACT, SAGE etc. and where/how can a parent review all of this

information? Is there a way to completely opt out of any student-

level data collection/sharing (de-identied or not) that extends

beyond the childs primary school?


29/31

We share this concern.


30/31

We are not programming machines. We are teaching children. We

are not producing functionaries, factory-like. We are to be forming

the minds and hearts of men and women to be human beings,

honoring what is good and right and cherishing what is beautiful.

--Anthony Esolen,

professor of Renaissance English Literature

Providence College in Rhode Island

Will increased testing, tracking and standardization serve ourchildren well especially if the costs include parents feeling

increasingly marginalized, teachers motivated by test scoresrather than a love of their work, and less customization for localneeds?

The most controversial issues of the twenty-rst century will pertain to the ends and means of modifying human behavior and

who shall determine them. The rst educational question will not be what knowledge is of the most worth?

but what kinds of human beings do we wish to produce? -- John Goodlad

In other words, what is the purpose of education, and who gets to decide?

Some believe it should be highly tracked so that every child knows on every step of their educational trajectory what theyre going to do.

--US Education Secretary Arne Duncan

When combined with the statements of those leading education reform this job force goal seems to imply that the highest aim of education is

work. Historically, the purpose of American education was to nurture the development of self-governing citizens, with work being incidental to

that development. Our Founding Fathers and other great thinkers were who they were because they studied the great works, not work itself. This

nation has uniquely thrived according to the principle that a free market with good people works better than attempts at planned markets withefciently trained workers.

"It requires everybody working together on the same issues, the

same goals, in order to have that pipeline from cradle to career,"said Deborah Bayle, president and CEO of United Way of Utah.

http://www.ksl.com/index.php?sid=17427418&nid=481

She was speaking of Prosperity 2020. Are our schools nothing more

than a pipeline of pint-sized human capital?

Or, does the following more closely match Utah ideals?


31/31

References for Gates Foundation and education reform

1. http://www.gatesfoundation.org/media-center/press-releases/2007/04/strong-american-schools-campaign-launches-to-promote-education-

reform-in-2008-presidential-election

2. http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_30/b4188058281758.htm#p4

3. http://www.mtairynews.com/view/full_story/6589448/article-N-C--one-of-16-nalists-for-Race-to-the-Top?instance=special_coverage_bul-lets_right_column

4. http://chronicle.com/blogs/innovations/the-core-between-the-states/29511

5. http://chronicle.com/blogs/innovations/the-core-between-the-states/29511

6. http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/stories/2009/05/18/story2.html?page=all

7. http://www.gatesfoundation.org/press-releases/Pages/national-parent-teacher-association-common-core-standards-091202.aspx

8. http://thejournal.com/articles/2011/04/05/gates-foundation-ups-stake-in-common-core-standards.aspx

9. http://www.gatesfoundation.org/press-releases/Pages/common-core-tools-110427.aspx

10. http://www.pearsoned.com/pearson-foundation-partners-bill-melinda-gates-foundation-create-digital-learning-programs/

11. http://www.gatesfoundation.org/How-We-Work/Quick-Links/Grants-Database/Grants/2011/11/OPP1044898

Documents

Rebuttal to the USBE Common Core Presentation