Slide-by-slide Response to Utah State Board of Education Common Core Presentation by Utahns Against Common Core www.utahnsagainstcommoncore.

com

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 the same 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

These figures 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 & Melinda Gates Foundation (called partners.) Similar figures have been prepared for every state. Without disputing the importance of higher education, it seems wise to question the influence of a few, wellfunded and ideaologically-aligned reformers on the policy direction for public education of nearly every state in 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 of

these reforms justify circumventing processes of responsible and representative governance like cost analysis and well-publicized public hearings?

There is a place for judicious use of testing, but many are concerned that results of so called highstakes and standardized test scores and state rankings are being misapplied 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 fit 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.

Question: How does the

school board notify, invite or engage Utah parents regarding major policy decisions?

(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, educate, 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 exercise primary control over the care, supervision, upbringing, and education of their children.

Federal Grants Governor has no constitutional authority to set standards

input diluted with that of other states

National Governors Association** Council of Chief State School Officers**

Private Businesses and foundations with no lobbying restrictions

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

** Not constitutional representative bodies.

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 of economic 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 flowchart on previous page.)

The first 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?

Question: Isnt a more homogenous market for text publishers likely

to further narrow text book choices in a market that was already dominated by the largest states?

ACT, and the College Board (SAT) helped write the standards along with Achieve and Americas Choice which are closely affiliated 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 of Mathematics, 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 Advancement 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 and Development, 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, Elementary and 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/maincontent-list/title_common-core-state-standards-development-work-group-and-feedbackgroup-announced.html

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.

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

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

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

Utahs standards are briefly 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 specific topics, such as quadratic functions, are grouped together in a mathematically coherent way. The organization of the Common Core is more difficult to navigate, in part because standards dealing with related topics sometimes appear separately rather than together.
http://edexcellencemedia.net/publications/2010/201007_state_education_standards_common_standards/Utah.pdf

--Fordhams conclusion after comparing Utahs previous math standards to Common Core

Question: Our previous Math standards were rated Aand the Common Core standards were rated as AHow is that a significant upgrade?

All of the standards writing and discussions were sealed by confidentiality 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 influence committee members had on final product. Some of the things I advised made their way into the 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/five-people-wrote-state-led-common-core * Dane Linn, NGA education director at the time

Question: Are any of the professionals listed here

recipients 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?

Dr. Stotsky and Dr. Milgram were two of five 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. Wu made 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 final 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.

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

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 2010

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

In 2007 the Gates & Broad Foundations give $60 million to create a sweeping public awareness and action campaign Two former staff of Gates Foundation were hired by Obamas U.S. Education Department and were granted waivers by 14 out of the 16 Race to the Top grant recipients were given financial aid from Gates Foundation to pay consultants who Between January 2008 and November 2010, the Gates Foundation had contributed more than $35-million to the Council In February 2008 Gates gave $12.6-million to Achieve 5 of Chief School Officers and the National Governors Association Center 4 helped prepare their RttT applications 3 the Administration from its revolving-door policy limiting involvement with former employers 2 that will mobilize the public and presidential candidates around solutions for the countrys education crisis 1

$3 Million to Thomas B. Fordham Institute to review Common Core 6 $1 million to PTA to organize parent endorsement of Common Core 7 $20 Million in Grants for projects aligned with Common Core 9 $3 million to ASCD (professional development for educators) to promote Common Core with educators 8 $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.)

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 ACommon 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 ACalifornias 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 than Common Core. Californias standards could well serve as a model for internationally competitive national standards.
http://www.edexcellence.net/publications/thestate-of-state-of-standards-and-the-common-corein-2010.html

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 teacher

http://jaypgreene.com/2013/03/21/constructive-criticism-for-commoncore-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 first-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/

The 70/30 split favoring informational text over classic literature by the 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 first before we can conduct research on their effectiveness. -- Complete Resource Guide on Utahs Core Standards
http://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 significant 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

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

Federal Register, definitions for ARRA (stimulus) Funds

(July 29, 2009 p. 8)

Common set of K12 standards means a set of content standards that define what students must know and be able to do, and that are identical 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 Definitions Page 18 of Utahs Flexibility Waiver* refers to career and collegeready standards as defined by part (1) of the USDOE definitions. The referenced part (1) leads to the following description: 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 States total standards for a content area.

ESEA Flexibility Waiver Policy Doc (page 6, parts 1 & 6) http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/esea-flexibility/index.html

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.

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

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/eseaflex/ut.pdf

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 first place.
http://www.achieve.org/files/FINAL-CCSSImplementationGuide.pdf

May 1, 2009 Utah 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 by Monday. 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, 2009 Board encouraged to adopt CC standards on first reading Brenda Hales: We know that the Board hasnt had time to look so if the Board adopts [the Common Core State Standards] on first 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 first reading? Right? Laurel: On first reading and then well have second... Board Chair: Does everyone understand that? So even though the committee approved it on first reading, its coming to you on first 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 find ourselves in an interview relative to our Race to the Top application.
UT State School Board Meeting Audio @19:34

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/

Wasnt this the real public comment period that was publicized to citizens, 22 months after the CCSS were adopted? Isnt that why this due process disclaimer is here?

http://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/leg/recovery/implementation.html

February 13, 2009 Reinvestment & Recovery Act Passed with $100 Billion for Education

June 2, 2010 Final version of the Common Core Standards released June 4, 2010 Board encouraged to adopt CC standards on first reading for RttT process

April 29, 2009 House Education and Labor Committee hearing

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

As reported online by Alyson Klein at Education Week

T. Kenneth James, the commissioner of education in Arkansas and the president of the Council of Chief State School Officers, 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 federal mandate attached. But he said Congress and the U.S. Department of Education should focus on using the bully pulpit to 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. James said.
Robert 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

Road to a National Curriculum

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 officials who are part of the national standards and assessment efforts are compliant in the breaking of these federal laws. Pioneer Institute Executive Director Jim Stergios

...the Department is evading these prohibitions and using proxies to cement national standards and assessments. (p.5) The Department has simply paid others to do that which it is forbidden to do. (p.18)

http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2012/03/03/report-common-core-poses-legalquestions

General Education Provisions Act Department of Education Organization Act Elementary and Secondary Education Act

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/taxsponsored-common-core-meetings-closed-public

delegation of a core function to the Board of Regents unconstitutional but delegation to the NGA and CCSSO (D.C. based trade organizations) not unconstitutional?

Question: How is the

There are Common Core State Standards and Common Core Assessments... both part of the first of four assurances that 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 the development of rigorous, common state assessments. -- Secretary of Education Arne Duncan announcing the Race to the Top

http://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 Ed subsequently 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.

AIR is also one of the worlds largest behavioral and social science research organizations. AIR is the official 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 benefits, 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?

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

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 national database 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.

Questions: What data is collected for a single student

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

in 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 studentlevel data collection/sharing (de-identified or not) that extends beyond the childs primary school?

We share this concern.

The most controversial issues of the twenty-first century will pertain to the ends and means of modifying human behavior and who shall determine them. The first 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 "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? 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 our children well especially if the costs include parents feeling increasingly marginalized, teachers motivated by test scores rather than a love of their work, and less customization for local needs? 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 with efficiently trained workers.

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-educationreform-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-finalists-for-Race-to-the-Top?instance=special_coverage_bullets_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