Thursday, October 4, 2012
Wednesday, July 18, 2012
Sutherland Fact Check on Claims by USOE
Fact-checking USOE claims on Common Core
As the debate about Common Core carries on, many interested parties are making claims about what effect the new standards will have on public education and children in Utah. The latest comes from Brenda Hales of the Utah State Office of Education (USOE) and a response by Christel Swasey, a public-school teacher in Utah.
After several months of research, Sutherland Institute published a report recommending the state exit Common Core and agreements related to it. In this blog post, we have rated how true or false the USOE claims are, and explain our ratings based on our research. All page numbers refer to our full report, and we made format changes to USOE quotes to maintain consistency.
USOE: “Personally identifiable student data has never been shared with or requested by the federal government. Utah retains control over student data. While there have been some recent revisions to FERPA regulations, the law still clearly states who has access to information and under what circumstances. Still in all cases the law is ‘permissive’ not ‘obligatory’; that is, Utah may share the data but it is never obliged to share it. Utah won’t share the data without compelling reasons and then only within the strictest confines of federal law.”
Rating: Likely true – with caution.
The key phrase here is “personally identifiable student data.” Utah must give education data to the federal government as a participant in programs like NCLB and IDEA, but this data is reported on the state, district or school level, not the individual student level. However, the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC), of which Utah is a member, has agreed to work with the U.S. Department of Education to “develop a strategy to make student-level data that results from the assessment system available on an ongoing basis for research, including for prospective linking, validity, and program improvement studies, subject to applicable privacy laws” (pg. 10). So while Utah is not currently obligated to share personal student-level data with the federal government, the state may be pressured or required to do so in the future as a participant in SBAC (Utah has agreed to support any decision SBAC makes [pg. 10]). We urge USOE never to share personally identifiable data with the federal government. No “compelling reasons” exist to do so.
USOE: “The State Board of Education has control over the standards and assessments for Utah. The State Board can and will change them as needed without outside group or federal approval. The State Board is solely responsible for overseeing the implementation of the standards in our state.”
Rating: False, except the final sentence.
Utah has entered three agreements that limit control over its standards and assessments. First, its agreement with the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) and the National Governors Association (NGA) requires it to adopt Common Core standards in their entirety. The state has the option of adding up to 15 percent additional content but cannot subtract from or change the standards if it wants to retain its status as a participant in Common Core. To change its current core standards for language arts and mathematics, Utah would either have to convince the consortium to change the standards for all participating states or else exit its agreement with the consortium (pg. 8).
Second and third, Utah has agreed to adopt Common Core standards and SBAC’s computer adaptive assessments as part of its federally approved flexibility waiver for NCLB and its membership in SBAC. Thus, even if it ended its agreement with CCSSO and NGA, it would still be bound to participate in Common Core and SBAC assessments. To stop using these standards or assessments, the state would have to exit its agreement with SBAC, which requires federal approval, and either give up its NCLB flexibility waiver or receive approval from the Department of Education to use its own set of standards and assessments in order to maintain the waiver (this was an original option but any change would need federal approval) (pgs. 8-11). In summary, Utah can add up to 15 percent to its standards, but it cannot change them otherwise without approval from CCSSO, NGA and the U.S. Department of Education. It also must use SBAC assessments (still being developed) unless it receives approval from the same people. USOE might claim the state has control over standards and assessments because it can always exit its agreements with these entities, but as long as it maintains these agreements the state does not have control of its standards and assessments. For this reason, we urge the state to exit these agreements and develop its own standards and assessments.
USOE: “Utah has not lost its autonomy over standards and assessments.”
Rating: False.
See above.
USOE: “Utah reviews and updates core standards on a regular basis – typically improving and raising the bar on what Utah students need to know. The Utah core standards for Mathematics and Reading/English Language Arts were approved during the Board’s August 6 meeting. The State Board adopted them based on the quality of the standards. They were not adopted due to federal pressure, federal recommendations or federal money.”
Rating: Partially true and partially unknown.
The state does update its standards from time to time and improved its math standards not long before adopting Common Core (pgs. 2-3, 6). Whether the standards were adopted because of federal money is unknown. The timing of agreements leads one to wonder if Utah adopted the standards to qualify for Race to the Top funds, but only state officials know their true motives for adopting the standards.
USOE: “The Utah core standards may be changed by the State Board at any time.”
Rating: False, unless the state exits current agreements.
See above.
USOE: “The Utah core standards were not developed, funded or mandated by the federal government.”
Rating: Technically true.
The federal government did not develop, fund or mandate the standards, but it has encouraged the adoption of them through NCLB waivers. Utah could have chosen to develop its own improved standards superior to Common Core and still qualify for a waiver, as Minnesota and Virginia have done, but it chose to adopt Common Core standards (pg. 9). The federal government is funding SBAC assessments, which the state has signed on to use, through its Race to the Top program.
USOE: “The Utah core standards are not federal or national standards.”
Rating: Possibly true.
Common Core standards are not federal standards, despite the federal government’s encouraging all states to adopt them. Whether they are national standards depends on how one defines “national.” 45 states (90 percent) have formally adopted the standards, which means some people may consider them to be national standards, but perhaps others would want the other five states on board to call them “national standards.” In the end, what we do know is that a couple years ago each state had its own set of standards, and today 45 states have common standards.
USOE: “The Utah core standards were not obligatory because of Utah’s Race to the Top application.”
Rating: Technically true.
Utah did not have to adopt Common Core standards to apply for Race to the Top grants, but the Obama administration did give preference to states that had “demonstrated its commitment to adopting a common set of high-quality standards” by participating in a consortium that included “a significant number of states” and was “working toward jointly developing and adopting a common set of K-12 standards” (pgs. 9-10). Utah did not win a Race to the Top grant, so it is not bound to remain in Common Core through that federal program.
USOE: “The Utah core standards are not under the control or manipulation of special interest groups.”
Rating: Somewhat false.
SBAC is a group of states with a special interest in creating assessments aligned with Common Core. While SBAC is a collaboration of public entities, it is a group outside of Utah to which the state has ceded some of its autonomy over public education. As a member of SBAC, Utah has agreed in advance to adopt Common Core and to support any decisions the consortium makes. For example, if SBAC decides to require member states to add specific elements to its current math and language arts standards or to adopt common standards in other subject areas, then Utah would need to adhere to those decisions unless it exits SBAC (pg. 10). This applies especially to Utah’s assessments, as the state has agreed to use SBAC assessments when they are completed. It’s also important to remember that while NGA and CCSSO (creators of Common Core) have public officials on their boards and committees, they are private special interest groups.
USOE: “The Utah core standards are not obligatory because of Utah’s NCLB flexibility request application.”
Rating: False.
As explained above, Utah had to choose one of two options to qualify for an NCLB flexibility request: It could adopt Common Core standards or develop its own improved standards. Utah’s adoption of Common Core qualified it for the waiver the federal government has already approved. The state is obligated to use Common Core standards unless it obtains permission from the federal government to develop its own standards and maintain its waiver, or unless the state chooses to back out of the waiver (pg. 9).
USOE: “In a letter dated March 7, 2012, Arne Duncan, the Secretary of the United States Department of Education affirmed that ‘states have the sole right to set learning standards.’ In Utah’s flexibility request we informed the Department of Education that we have chosen to use our Utah core standards. If and when the State Board decides to change or revise Utah’s standards they will do so.”
Rating: True.
Although if the State Board wants to change or revise its standards it must take the steps described above.
USOE: “Occasionally, the Department of Education has wrongly and problematically appeared to take credit for the standards. For example, an application for a federal grant for development of assessments erroneously stated that the standards were released by the Department of Education. This has led to confusion over who wrote the core. Stephanie Shipton from the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices (NGA Center) reaffirmed in an email to the Utah State Office of Education (USOE) on March 27, 2012, ‘The statement ‘Common Core Standards released by the Department of Education’ is factually incorrect (assuming you are referring to the U.S. Department of Education). The NGA Center and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) hold the copyright. In addition, the U.S. Department of Education played no role in the development process (including but not limited to financial contributions, input on the standards, and input on the process).’”
Rating: Probably true.
USOE: “Utah applied to receive a Race to the Top (RTTT) grant, but did not receive one. At a federal government level, the Department of Education has in the past two years issued grants that encourage the use of the Common Core, Charter Schools, Educator Evaluation systems that include accountability for student growth, performance incentives, interventions for low-performing schools and other initiatives. Utah is under no obligation associated with RTTT and does not receive any RTTT funds.”
Rating: Mostly true.
As mentioned, Utah did not win a grant through Race to the Top and does not receive any funds directly through Race to the Top, but it does have obligations through its participation in SBAC (as described above), which is funded by Race to the Top (pgs. 9-12).
USOE: “Utah is using the state procurement process to implement a new assessment system and to determine future assessment purchases. Utah participates in a consortium of states to develop assessments and a computer adaptive assessment system. The consortium called SBAC receives federal funds from a federal grant [Race to the Top]. Utah signed a document agreeing to participate in the development of the Smarter Balanced Assessment System. Utah agreed to use the assessments if the state is still an SBAC governing state in the 2014-2015 school year. Utah may withdraw from the consortium at any time through a formal exit process. To date, six states have terminated their participation in the consortium with a 1-7 day process. Utah can choose to use SBAC or reject it.”
Rating: True, with qualifications.
The state can reject SBAC and withdraw from it at any time, assuming it receives approval from SBAC and the federal government. If Utah withdraws from SBAC it would need to rework its NCLB flexibility waiver because it has agreed to use SBAC assessments in order to obtain the waiver (pg. 11).
To learn more, see “Common Core: Is It Best for Utah Children?”
Monday, July 16, 2012
Experts Day 2 - Leg. lunch & Public Forum
Tuesday, our events began around noon with our guests arriving at the Cheesecake Factory. We had reserved a private banquet room and it seated 72 and we squeezed about 80 people into the room and it was very, very crowded. And we were thrilled! There were about 40 legislators in attendance and they listened and asked great questions.
Legislator Luncheon Presentation on July 9, 2012
Afterwards, arrangements had been made for a tour of City Creek. It was interesting to hear what he had to say and fun to walk around this beautiful shopping center.
It wasn't a huge crowd, but there were several Senators and the experts came along too.
Afterwards, I think we were all ready for a nap and Emmett was a trooper to stay and visit with us.
It is so fun to learn from him about things that are happening around the country. He is such a smart and genuinely nice person.
That evening was our big event that we were very nervous about. We weren't sure if people would come out on a weeknight, but it was a huge success. The auditorium was filled and it was standing room only. We figured there were around 320 in attendance and the message was very well received and people stayed around for a long time afterwards conversing.
We ended the evening at Chili's for a very late night dinner and conversation to discuss the events of the past few days. What an honor to associate and develop friendships with so many people who truly understand the importance of preserving the blessing of freedom and liberty in America.
Short Clip about Common Core & Federalism with Dr. Bill Evers on July 10th, 2012
Common Core Public Forum July 10th, 2012
Experts Day 1 - Monday July 9, 2012
Monday around 11am we met the experts who had flown in from around the country in the lobby of their hotel and then walked over to Temple Square for a special tour that was conducted by Pres. and Sister Bennion, some missionaries, and a director of public affairs for the LDS church. It was interesting to be taken on a VIP tour and learn more information about Temple Square and the Conference Center.
After the tour we headed to "The Garden" for lunch. We ended up having to sit at two different tables since we were such a large group. We had time to visit, learn more about each other, and learn from one another.
Bill Evers was a hoot and loved to share his wealth of information with us and we enjoyed listening.
Jamie Gass with Janette Hall and JaKell Sullivan. He has been such a huge help in this process of learning and I don't know that you could find a more humble, knowledgeable, kind person.
Kent Talbert, a top lawyer on education out of Washington DC was also there. He is a wealth of knowledge and also very kind. He is also very well read and did a great job presenting the legality issues with Common Core.
Emmett McGroarty is also a lawyer and very sharp. I would say he is a "deep thinker and analyzer". He is also been the key player in working with Alisa and orchestrating this whole week of events. He has been such a huge resource to us.
Also, another instrumental player has been Judge Norm Jackson. Kevin really enjoyed learning from him and he is a very humble and wise man. I especially enjoy his little sense of humor and watching him interact with his daughter.
After lunch, we met in the lobby to strategize and finalize for the meeting with the governor at 4:00pm.
What an amazing group of individuals. I feel so blessed to have formed these friendships.
These are the five gentlemen that presented to the governor. Well, the Judge didn't actually get to present to the governor because he left before it was his turn. He was so funny, he said, "can someone turn on the air in here?" He was trying to lighten the mood and was referring to that the discussion was getting a little heated. But, I don't think they got it. Christine Kearl just responded that she'd already made the same request.
The Three Heber Moms- Renee, Christel and Alisa. I can honestly say that this experience has changed my life and my families for the better.
Then we headed over to the radio station for an interview with Rod Arquette. He did an hour long interview and helped greatly to promote our public forum that was held the following evening. We shared the famous red flyer with Kent and Jamie. It was sent out before the state convention to make delegates aware of Common Core and it raised quite a stir around the state and with the governor.
It was fun to watch the radio show in progress and visit with each other.
Rod Arquette has been awesome and really helped spread the word. He is so well-read and really understands the issues with Common Core.
Alisa and I jumped in for a photo op.
After this we headed to Red Iquana II for dinner and conversation. What a great group of men and so fun to visit and learn from their experiences. What a blessing, I had to keep pinching myself because it was a bit of a dream to come to this point.
Link to the Podcast of Monday's show July 9, 2012 with Emmett McGroarty and Bill Evers.
Jamie Gass on Rod Aquette on Friday July 6, 2012.
KTMP Radio - Christel and Renee'
The link above will let you listen to Christel and I on our local radio station. Hosts Bob Wren and Paul Royall had us on to report some of the events of the past week to our local community. Bob and Paul have been more than generous in offering us lots of radio time to spread the message. It has also helped us sort our thoughts and be ready to answer questions.
Jamie Gass on why Workforce fad is wrong
Circulation: 120,000
Circulation: 15,000
Circulation: 7,500
Circulation: 6,000
Workforce-development fad wrong for Mass. schools
July 15, 2012
CHARLES CHIEPPO JAMIE GASS
BOSTON
The Massachusetts Board of Elementary and Secondary Education’s 2008 Task Force on 21st Century Skills called for refocusing public-school curricula on such fuzzy concepts as “cultural competence” and “global awareness.” But Massachusetts citizens were less than excited about trading in the success that flowed from the commonwealth’s liberal arts-rich academic standards.
Four years later, the board is back pushing essentially the same ideas in the guise of recommendations from another task force, this one on “Integrating College and Career Readiness” (ICCR).
Massachusetts’s laser-like focus on academics has produced historic results. In 2005, Bay State students became the first ever to lead in all four categories on tests known as “The Nation’s Report Card.” Since then, they have repeated the feat each time the tests have been administered.
American students may not be globally competitive in math and science, but Massachusetts students are. They shined on 2008 international testing, even tying for best in the world in eighth-grade science.
The performance of the commonwealth’s students wasn’t always so impressive. But when Governor William Weld and legislative education committee cochairmen Tom Birmingham and Mark Roosevelt crafted bipartisan education-reform legislation in 1993, they insisted on liberal-arts-rich state standards.
These framers of education reform not only knew literacy and numeracy are the best routes to genuine college- and career-readiness, but that providing all the commonwealth’s schools with a liberal-arts curriculum is the best way to bridge class- and race-based achievement gaps. In contrast, by promoting fads, the ICCR task force’s strategy is to close these gaps by lowering academic expectations.
In an introductory letter to fellow task-force members, Board of Elementary and Secondary Education (BESE) member Gerald Chertavian, who chaired both the 21st Century skills and ICCR task forces, writes that their recommendations promote “what works.” Nothing could be further from the truth.
The task force would make academics just one-third of a three-legged stool, sharing equal time with “workplace readiness” and “personal and social development.” And we thought that parents were responsible for kids’ personal and social development.
But it is the idea of education as workforce development that is most demonstrably misguided.
Massachusetts BESE members and other soft-skills advocates have often pointed to West Virginia as a beacon when it comes to incorporating workforce development and 21st Century skills into public-school curricula. Yet in its recent state-by-state report card on public post-secondary education, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce gives that state a “D” for “meeting labor market demand.”
Underprivileged kids are among the biggest victims of the education as mere workforce-development model.
An analysis by Matthew Ladner, a research scholar at the Foundation for Excellence in Education, found that West Virginia was one of only eight states in which reading and math scores for low-income students declined between 2007 and 2011. During the same period, scores rose by an average of 10 points nationally and Massachusetts’s scores went up by 13 points.
But the move away from academic content is nothing new. When the BESE voted in 2010 to replace Massachusetts’s English and math standards with less rigorous national standards, it chose to reduce by more than half the amount of classic literature, drama, and poetry public school students will read.
Instead of building on Massachusetts’s academic successes, the ICCR task force would build a bigger state education bureaucracy. Its recommendations include one that would “increase staff and resource capacity” at the state Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. Another one calls on the department to develop an entirely separate set of career-readiness education standards.
The result would be a state bureaucracy that grows even as public-school enrollment shrinks. Statewide, there are about 24,000 fewer students than in fiscal 2003 and Boston’s enrollment has declined by over 6,700 in recent years. This drop is projected to accelerate in the commonwealth’s urban and rural areas.
Longtime supporters of K-12 education as workforce-development training were buoyed by Massachusetts’s ill-considered decision to adopt less rigorous national standards. But the content-light recommendations of the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education’s Task Force on Integrating College and Career Readiness deserve the same icy reception they got four years ago, when they were packaged as 21st Century skills.
Charles Chieppo is a senior fellow and Jamie Gass directs the Center for School Reform at Pioneer Institute, a Boston-based think tank and advocacy group.
Jamie Gass
Director, Center for School Reform
85 Devonshire Street, 8th Floor
Boston, MA 02109 | Map
P: 617.723.2277 ext. 210
P: 617.723.2277 ext. 210
F: 617.723.1880
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)