Goodbye but not Forgotten

Today is the last board meeting I will attend as your elected representative on the Alpine School District Board of Education.  To say it has been an honor but a difficult responsibility is an understatement.  I have been strengthened and encouraged by everyone's kindness and support throughout these past eight years.  And I thank you, more than many of you could ever know.

But having said that, this doesn't mean everything comes to an end and we drive away into the sunset.  This next year is every bit as important or more so than the last.  Who is serving in public office is nowhere near as important as what, We, the People do to inform that discussion and remain informed and involved.  I would like to ask those who are willing, can you attend a single board meeting out of 365 days in the next year?  Is that too much to ask?  4-5 hours out of 8,760 hours in 2019?  That's .06% of your time in the next year.  Is freedom, education and the future of our schools and our children worth .06% or .12% in that endeavor?  Let me know if you are willing to continue to be informed and involved citizens.  We have great people and teachers in this community.  Whatever the issues, we can improve them and solve them working together, not appealing to outside experts in DC or some Think Tank that stands to make a lot of money when they proclaim that our "education system" has failed.  A thriving educational system that partners with teachers, parents and the student doesn't make outside experts a lot of money, but it does educate the next generation, consistent with the values of their families and their communities.  This is only done when the individuals in this community step up and stay informed and involved.

There are so many things on the horizon, new health and science standards.  (The health standards are especially problematic, in my opinion.)  Math still being taught by cramming 4 years' worth of high-level math into 3 years (Algebra 1,2, Geometry and Pre-Calculus in 9-11th grades, IF you want to get to Calculus as a Senior).  What literature are our kids reading and obtaining their values from? How much emphasis on GRIT and social-emotional learning do you want in your schools, in a formal way, if any?  Do you want EVERY First Grader to learn to code?  How much technology do you want your kids exposed to in schools?  How will you, as a parent, manage their overall online activity when so much of the homework is now online?  If you have an opinion

, we need your voice.

I am grateful for the trust that you have bestowed on me.  I hope I have been worthy, in some small way, of that trust.  Thank you for your support.  As I have said before, you will never know how much your little notes, text messages, FB posts and treats have buoyed me up and given me the fortitude to go on.

My predecessor finished her final board meeting with these words: "When you are in the service of your fellow beings, you are only in the service of your God."  I echo her sentiment and am grateful to have served.

Mt. Vernon, overlooking the Potomac River.

Tax-rate increase hearing: August 14, 2018

This Tuesday, August 14, at 6pm at the District Office (575 N. 100 E., American Fork) the Alpine School Board will hold a Truth in Taxation hearing.  This is where you, the taxpayer, can have an opportunity to be heard about a tax-rate increase for this year's budget.

The perspective of most everyone in education is that if the amount isn't all that big, then it shouldn't be an issue.  In fact, bond votes and tax increases are proclaimed, nationwide in school board conferences and publications, as evidence that taxpayers are "supportive of public education."  If you oppose a bond or any other sort of tax increase, you don't care about kids and certainly you don't want them educated.  (In fact, some of the conferences have "how to" courses on increasing funding in education.  There is no discussion about what to spend that money on.)  In fairness, for the most part, I think Alpine School District does a decent job with our funding and budgeting. And the intentions of everyone involved, I think, are good.

Here's what you need to know.  Feel free to skim the non-italicized parts for the main points.

1. Utah Law requires the amount of money the districts (or cities or counties) receive from year to year to remain the same, excluding growth. 

So, if we received $100M one year from all the property in ASD's boundaries, then we should receive $100M the next year from those same properties PLUS any additional property taxes from any new developments that came into being that next year.  

How this works: If the total amount of all the property in ASD increases in value, then the tax rate decreases automatically to generate the same amount going to the district.  If the total amount of all the property decreases in value, then the tax rate increases automatically. 

An example.  Numbers used are for explanation purposes but are not accurate.  The tax rate is much, much lower.  And the examples are, admittedly, very simplified.
Year 1: Total property value : $100M. Tax rate: 1%. Taxes generated: $100M x 1% =  $1M.
Year 2: Total property value: $90M. Tax rate:1.1%. Taxes generated (minus growth): $90M x 1.1% = $1M.
Year 3: Total property value: $110M. Tax rate: 0.9%. Taxes generated (minus growth): $110M x 0.9% = $1M.


Truth in Taxation: If in Year 3, the district would like to keep the tax rate at 1.1% or even increase it, so as to generate more than the $1M, then a Truth in Taxation hearing would need to occur.  At the 1.1% rate, this would generate $1.21M instead.  

Rather than following the economy like most other states, that when values increase, the taxes go up and vice versa, ours is the opposite. When the economy is struggling and values are down, the tax rate automatically increases and you are paying a larger percentage in property taxes than you were.  But there is no hearing on this.  It just happens.  When the economy is good, you pay a smaller percentage in taxes.

2. If the tax rate goes down, the district can hold a public Truth in Taxation hearing to increase that rate.  This is what we are doing on Tuesday.  The interesting part of this is that we only have these hearings, arguably, when the economy is strong.  When the economy is weak and values are down, the rate increases but without a public hearing.  So the vast majority of the population is less concerned about a rate increase because they are doing well.

Sadly, under our current tax system, the people who are most harmed by this are those whose particular circumstances make them struggle economically while prosperity reigns around them.  They might be those on a fixed-income (who, if elderly or disabled, do get partial waivers for property taxes), young people and young families, just starting off in life, and military families, for example.

3. The legislature has created an incentive for districts to increase property taxes. The state matches local property tax with state funds, up to a certain amount.  If the tax rate goes down, the state continues to match at the higher rate for up to 5 years.  This creates an incentive for the district to increase the rate at least once every 5 years.  The legislature may claim that they don't raise taxes, but they incentivize the local school districts to do it for them.  It's a win-win for the legislature.  More money in education; no accountability for raising taxes or creating a tax system where in hard times your tax rate just happens to go up without anyone commenting or caring.

Going forward, it would be even easier for the district to just regularly increase the rate every year, that way the increase is much, much smaller, and fewer people will complain.  Doing this yearly, the perception will be that we aren't increasing the taxes very much, and the side-benefit is that people get used to having a Truth in Taxation hearing every year. It becomes as big of a deal as watching paint dry.   

4. We support tax-incentives over multiple decades for big, well-connected companies, like Facebook.  Currently, those range in the area of $18,000,000 per year. (See pg. 181: here.)

Yes, the argument is that without these tax incentives, nothing would ever develop.  But, giving the tax incentives over more than 5 -10 years enters into the realm of predicting the future.  It is difficult for the average person to justify a tax incentive for a big, well-connected corporation, but then come back to taxpayers and ask for a few dollars more.  What's good for the goose should be good for the gander.  If we need more money today, then we probably shouldn't have approved those tax incentives all those years ago.  With a growing community like Utah County, I think we would be hard-pressed to assume that all the development in our communities wouldn't have occurred without these tax incentives.  In the short-term, that may be true.  In the long-term? I seriously doubt it.  Tax-incentives, if you think such a thing should be done, should be limited to 5 or 10 years.  Anything more than that is just robbing future generations of school kids in order to appease the power-brokers of today.  Facebook gets to live here tax-free for 35 years.  You and I aren't so lucky.

5. Increased Tech and Coaching Funding vs More Teachers and Smaller Class Sizes.  Our district/board's priorities don't seem to match those priorities of the people.  Repeatedly, when talking with parents and taxpayers, their biggest concerns are wanting smaller class sizes, traditional math (not Common Core/Investigations/Inquiry-based math), and limits on screen time.

Instead, partly due to legislative incentives and partly due to education conferences, everyone (it seems) in the state and the nation is accepting the narrative that without technology, kids will not be able to function appropriately "in the 21st Century."  So, in addition to the millions that ed tech companies stand to make, everyone thinks that educational technology is the Silver Bullet of education--probably a lot like Baby Einstein videos from a decade or so ago.  (Side note: Silicon Valley execs are the exception. ) Have you seen your kids on tech?  Are you worried they won't pick it up without explicit training and exposure to it?

Also, there is a huge push toward Social-Emotional Learning (SEL)/21st Century Skills, nationally, as opposed to academic content. What that means is participation and attitudes can be seen as more important than whether you know history or math facts.  To our credit, our teachers are being trained to make SEL as important, not more important, than academic content. But, while teachers have always, naturally, included things like participation, honesty, and a can-do attitude as a by-product of their teaching, to focus on those things necessarily removes the focus from reading, writing, and math.

Our current budget includes expenses for hiring more Technology and Instructional Coaches to train teachers to use tech and these other methods (Project-based, Inquiry-based, etc), as opposed to using those same funds to hire more teachers to reduce class sizes.  The argument is that if the Coaches make our existing teachers better, then it's a more efficient use of our time.  One school has had great success with an Instructional Coach.  So, if that model holds, then similar improvements should be seen when expanded across the district's nearly 90 schools. 

Our budget also includes funding for more technology.  As our schools go through our 21st Century implementation, iPads and ChromeBooks are included at the ratio of 1 device for every 2 students.  Sadly, parents don't really have an option for a tech-less school system. And in light of all the negative results of too much screen time, I think we are setting our kids up for lots of problems (sleep issues, moodiness, depression, etc.  See here, here, and here.) by adding to the already ubiquitous screen exposure.  Not to mention, the increased difficulty parents now have in making sure kids do their homework (and don't get distracted), limiting screen time, and knowing what their kids are studying and how they're doing, if everything is online.  

Many people think a small increase in funding is appropriate.  The real question is what do you think? How should that increase be used? Will you be willing to stand up and state what your priorities are for our school district?  Hope to see you at the hearing on Tuesday!

Common Core IS NOT Dead, Board Goals, State Issues

A lot is going on in education.  Most importantly, tomorrow, Tuesday, Jan. 23, our Board will have a retreat to set goals for the district for 2018.  Please email me or reply on facebook with what goals you would like us to set.  (I can bring up to 2 goals, but I would like to see all your thoughts.)

I'm going to give you a brief summary of what's going on Locally, Statewide and Nationally in education.

Local:

1. Board Retreat, setting Board Goals.  Review of 21st Century Learning/STEAM schools.  It is the school district's plan to convert all of our schools into 21st Century/STEAM schools.  Right now, Cedar Ridge, Ridgeline and Highland (if I recall) in my area are all 21st Century Learning.  This means more project-based learning, less memorization, more technology and a focus on the 6 C's: Collaboration, Communication, Critical Thinking, Creativity, Citizenship, Character.  

I, personally, have grave concerns with more tech in schools, especially with the emphasis on character traits and values, as evidenced by the 6 C's and the national ESSA (replacement for No Child Left Behind) requirements.  More on ESSA below.  Here is an interesting read on Critical Thinking that I agree with.  https://www.memoriapress.com/articles/the-critical-thinking-skills-hoax/

2. The Board set up a Local Building Authority last meeting to facilitate paying for the rebuild of Scera Park Elementary in Orem without raising taxes or going through a bond.  You can read more about it on my blog: https://wendy4asd.blogspot.com/2018/01/local-building-authority.html

3. This is an election year.  4 Alpine Board Seats will be up for election this year, as well as 1 State Board seat in our area.  I would like to encourage everyone to take a moment and think seriously about running for office.  The 4 ASD Seats are: Saratoga Springs/Eagle Mountain (currently held by Paula Hill who will not be running again), American Fork (currently held by John Burton), West Orem (currently held by JoDee Sundberg), and Highland/Alpine/Cedar Hills (currently my seat).  As always,  I welcome any and all to throw their hats into the ring.  Civil public debate is the BEST way to get the best ideas working for our kids.  The State Board seat is currently held by Joel Wright and covers most of ASD, except Orem and a small part out West.  Government of the people, by the people and for the people requires not just a few people involved, but all of us.  And the Founders expected that people would rotate their service in public office.  The deadline to file is mid-March.

State:

1. The State is close to releasing the new science standards for grades 5, 9-12.  Since the Grade 6-8 standards are a rewording of the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS), it is my personal belief that the Board will adopt, without hesitation, the NGSS for these grades as well.  I have many concerns about these standards, but the biggest one is that Utah currently scores higher on ACT science than any state that also tests 100% of its juniors, not just those who self-select as wanting to go to college.  (That means our scores will be lower, on average, than those states that let kids decide whether to take the ACT or not.)  We also score higher than the national average on the science portion of the ACT.  So, I'm unsure why we would adopt standards that show other states doing more poorly.  Not to mention that the math is almost non-existent, as are body systems, chemistry and physics.  Also, Utah's current science standards (except Grades 6-8) received a B grade.  NGSS received a C from Fordham Foundation.  You can read more by searching NGSS on my blog: https://wendy4asd.blogspot.com/search?q=ngss  Here's the video from when we adopted Grades 6-8: https://wendy4asd.blogspot.com/2015/11/utahs-new-science-standards-national.html  The arguments are the same.  Please share with your friends and neighbors and ask them to contact the state board: board@schools.utah.gov to express their concern or their support.  If you are supportive, I would love to know why and where the NGSS has worked and by what measures it has worked.
2. The State's ESSA plan was rejected, in large part, due to our opting out of SAGE.  Rather than finding out why parents don't want their kids to take SAGE, the Board is looking at renaming SAGE.  They have hired a new testing vendor, Questar, to continue with the SAGE testing, but the terms of the proposal indicate we need to continue to use the same questions as SAGE.  So, new vendor, same questions, new name.  
3. Associated with that, the State Board is deciding how they want to handle the ESSA rejection by the Feds.  Please remember, when ESSA was being passed, everyone said that it returned Local Control of education to the states.  Those of us who opposed it said that it wouldn't.  What does everyone think now?  The options are 1) Ask the US Dept of Ed for a waiver for the opt out provisions, 2) Tell the Feds we don't want their Title 1 money and ask the Legislature to make up the difference in funding (my preference) or 3) Change state law to REQUIRE parents to submit their kids to SAGE testing against their will (Land of the Free?)  I have good reason to believe that if the State Board were to play their cards right, the Feds would be hard-pressed to hold back funding for the lowest socio-economic strata of kids in the lowest funded state in the nation.  But they'll try. 
4. The Legislature is in session.  1300 bills opened about education, if I remember correctly.  Please pay attention and email your legislators.  I'm sure there will be a desire to limit opting out of SAGE testing and other measures designed to limit parents in their primary role of raising their kids.

Feds:

1. ESSA requires a measurement for non-cognitive measures.  Just watch how everything will be focused on things like GRIT and perseverance, as well as technology.  The "nice" thing about technology is that you can have second-by-second information about your kid sent to a computer program to determine if your kid has the right attitudes, values and beliefs.  The desire to have knowledge is over.  "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?' The possibilities virtually defy our imagination." (John I. Goodlad) 
2. Secretary DeVos declares the "Common Core is dead!"  It's not.  Not by a long shot, and that is in large part due to ESSA.  You can read more about that here:  https://truthinamericaneducation.com/common-core-state-standards/betsy-devos-aei-american-enterprise-institute/  Please share this information with friends and neighbors.  Most BAD Educational ideas never die.  They just get renamed, rebranded and shilled to the public again as the "latest and greatest" education silver bullet.  

State Board Allows Greater Local Control for Middle School

The State Board voted in a 9-6 vote to allow greater flexibility in Middle School for local boards and parents. They still require English, Math, Science and History, but the electives are to be determined by the local board. They require PE, Fine Arts, CTE, Health and so forth to be offered, but not required, by law/board policy, for every child. This will allow us, as a local board, to set the requirements and any exceptions at the district level.

Below is my email thanking the State Board for this greater freedom. Many people are very concerned because the news headlines read that the State Board had eliminated PE and Health. They didn't eliminate it, they are opening up the requirements so the local boards can customize as they see fit. This is a huge win in the local control column. Please take a moment to thank the State Board for this action.

*****************************************************************************************************************
Dear State Board Members,

I just want to thank you for supporting increased local control last week in allowing us, as locally-elected school board members, to set the requirements for elective courses such as Band, PE, and CTE. Thank you for having the confidence in us, and the parents we represent, to be allowed the flexibility to legally make exceptions for students who don't fit the mold, who might have reasons for not needing PE, Health, CTE and so forth.

The biggest problem I see in education is we are trending toward more centralized control and more standardization. While we all acknowledge the individuality and uniqueness of every child, too often in a large system, such as ours, that individuality can be shut out and lost as we try to mandate all things to all people. And yet, the best answers are always those that allow more freedom for the individual to make the decisions that most directly impact himself or herself. In this case, that means the parents and those elected, most directly, to represent them.

For those of you who disagreed with the decision, I hope you will give us a chance, at the local level, to prove that we are worthy of the trust of our communities. I fear that our schools are becoming too aligned with testing and results and pushing for workforce skills and missing out on the wide variety of educational opportunities. So, be assured, that I will be on the front lines of making sure that we continue to offer a full complement of classes to meet our individual students' needs.

I hope going forward you will be inclined to look at the high school requirements, in a similar vein.

Additionally, it would be fantastic if you allowed districts to choose to adopt a non-integrated math option and to go with the traditional sequence of Algebra 1, Geometry, Algebra 2, pre-Calculus and then Calculus. An additional track that would allow for Algebra 1 to start in 8th grade like it used to before we adopted the Common Core standards for math in 2010 would be fantastic. It would allow the average student to take Calculus as a senior without having to cram 4 years' worth of high-level math into 3 years. (I have heard that the concern is SAGE testing, and I'd be happy to address why that shouldn't be a big issue at all.) Personally, I would combine Intermediate 1 and 2 and pick the most important topics from both (the majority of Int 2 is of greater importance than Int 1, despite that the CC standards in the Appendix stated that you could start Algebra 1 in 8th grade after completing their 7th grade sequence. They are incorrect.) Even better, just restore the pre-Algebra standards from 2007. Of course, in my world of worlds, the 2007 math standards would be adopted in place of what we currently have, but I digress onto my favorite topic. ;-)

Sorry for the length of my email. I am just so thrilled to finally see just a bit of control returned to our local boards and parents! This is something that people have wanted since I ran for the first time in 2010. When you knock on people's doors and talk to them, their concerns always center around what isn't working for their individual child. We need to allow greater flexibility just like this going forward.

Sincerely,

Wendy Hart
Mother of 3
Alpine School Board Member for Alpine, Cedar Hills and Highland

Thank You,Governor, for Request to Move Away from CC

THANK YOU, GOVERNOR HERBERT!
A couple of weeks ago, Governor Gary Herbert sent a letter to the Utah State Board of Education requesting they move away from the Common Core standards and work to eliminate SAGE testing from high school.  I think it is a great first step. Your involvement in the possible update of the standards will be essential going forward.

To read his letter, you can go here. 

In response, some local board members from around the state wrote this letter of thanks to the Governor. We are supportive of the Governor's call to revisit the Common Core standards and SAGE testing.  Whether we are supposed to have local control or not, parents who have children who are struggling realize all too well, how this isn't working for their children.  Those children are the collateral damage that Common Core is responsible for.  

Since the Governor's letter, a lot of editorials, websites, and facebook pages have come out criticizing the Governor's move, as well as, those of us who have been opposed to Common Core from its inception. Meetings with teachers, superintendents, etc have been scheduled to make sure that we don't deviate.  (Interestingly, in Feb. 2014, the State Board was told by the Secondary Math Education specialist to "Stay the Course" on the math because we didn't have enough data to know whether it was working or not.  Glad to know that my kid was an experiment.)  

COMMON CORE IS EXPERIMENTAL AND LUCRATIVE
It is understandable when so much money has been poured into Common Core, there are many powerful, well-connected people who have a lot to lose if states start doing their own thing again.  Imagine how lucrative it is when you can write a single set of materials and have it completely accepted in 45 out of 50 states.  Or as children struggle, these organizations can provide "new and better" professional development sessions, webinars, etc.  In short, student success doesn't sell, but student failure certainly does.  Why would any educational vendor not want Common Core, right? And that's the point.  The rich and powerful and well-connected like it. Those who worry about 'competing in a global economy' and (falsely) believe that Common Core will help, like it too.  The parents who are working with their kids, seeing them struggle, and wondering who came up with these stupid ideas, they don't.  So, now that the Governor has asked the State Board to reconsider, all those who stand to lose something are coming out in force.  But there are a whole host of kids who are being harmed by this experiment on our kids.  And that is what it is: an experiment.  It was adopted out of whole cloth without any testing, scientific research, or piloting.  The standards were 'informed by'.. the 'spirit of' those standards in other countries.  And the research I was cited by USOE at the beginning of the implementation was "we have anecdotal evidence."  

Next time, let's use something that has some evidence behind it, not just slick marketing, good funding, talking points, and empty promises about 'higher standards', 'international benchmarking', and 'college and career readiness,' all of which have been shown to be *untrue.  

WHAT DO WE REPLACE IT WITH?
A couple of thoughts going forward.  Massachusetts has a 13 year track record for their English and Math standards pre-Common Core.  We could look at theirs; the standards and the associated tests are in the public domain.  California experimented with Investigations Math before their General Assembly outlawed it.  They then developed A-rated Math standards, pre-Common Core. Both states 'dumbed down' their standards to Common Core in order to get the federal Race to the Top money. Indiana, Massachusetts, and California all had English standards SUPERIOR to Common Core, as rated by Fordham Foundation.  In short, there were 13 states that had English standards superior to our own and were equivalent or BETTER than Common Core. (Download the report from 2010 here.)

Utah's previous math standards (which by all accounts prohibited Investigations Math as a stand-alone method) were rated an A-minus, EXACTLY the same rating they gave to Common Core's Math (along with receiving Gates' Foundation money to promote CC). BUT, from reading the review, Utah's standards sound superior.  

Here are some quotes:

Overview 
Utah’s [2007 Math] standards are exceptionally well presented and easy to read and un­derstand. They cover content with both depth and rigor, and provide clear guidance. There are a few weaknesses in whole-number arithmetic. The high school content is exceptionally rigorous. 
Utah’s standards are beautifully presented and generally both clear and specific. They receive three points out of three for Clarity and Specificity 
The standards are generally very strong and cover most of the essential content with both depth and rigor. The high school standards are particularly strong. There are a few weaknesses in the development and prioritization of arithme­tic. Some minor problems result in a Content and Rigor score of six points out of seven (see Common Grading Metric, Appendix A). 

The Bottom Line 
With some minor differences, Common Core and Utah both cover the essential content for a rigorous, K-12 mathemat­ics program. Utah’s 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....[emphasis mine]

WHAT ABOUT CHANGING STANDARDS AGAIN?
First, I have to say that this wasn't a concern when the State Board jettisoned the 2007 math standards, that had just begun to be implemented 3 years later, in 2010, in hopes of receiving federal funding.

However, I really do feel for the teachers who for the past couple of decades have had to modify what they're doing every few years just to keep up with the 'latest and greatest best new thing' in education.  However, if we ever started looking at the actual research, maybe we would find that truth, real truth, doesn't change.  Sure, there can be fun, new ideas, but 2+2 = 4.  Let's allow teachers to have some semblance of constancy about those pieces of knowledge that are actually constant.  Let's allow teachers to use the lesson plans that they have found, by experience, are working.  I envision greater autonomy for our teachers who can find creative ways to work with all our kids, but who needn't be subject to the 'latest and greatest educational fad.'  


IT'S THE IMPLEMENTATION, NOT THE STANDARDS
We often hear that Common Core is wonderful; it's just the implementation that was poor. Every, single failed educational idea is always blamed on poor implementation.  More than a decade ago, Alpine School District implemented Investigations Math (a precursor to Common Core's methodology).  To this day, the failure of Investigations Math is blamed on implementation.  The reality is that parents don't want a lot of what Common Core teaches or the way it requires teachers to teach it. (And yes, the standards do include teaching methodology.)  It is important to note, there has not been one state out of the 45 that originally signed on to Common Core, where widespread 'failure of the standards' has been cited as the problem.  Instead, it has been noted, in those 45 states, that the blame lies clearly with the implementation.  It begs the question that if 45 independent states all implemented the same standards, and all 45 have had similar problems with parental backlash and teacher support dropping (70% down to 40% in 2015), could it be possible that maybe the problem is inherent in the Common Core standards and testing themselves, and not the implementation? A good system leads to good implementation. Much like a good tree yields good fruit.  The Common Core standards have shown by their 'failure of implementation' that they are not good at their core.  (Pun intended.) 

CAUTIOUS OPTIMISM/CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT
I am cautiously optimistic.  I hope we will go forward looking for things that will work and embracing true freedom in education.  My fear is we will pursue the 'next latest and greatest fad' to replace this botched one. And, like with Investigations Math, the fault will be placed, yet again, on the 'implementation.'  Unfortunately, like other states who have 'gotten out' of Common Core, we will probably end up with a rebranded failure to foist on the next generation of kids. 

Should the State Board reconsider the standards, I HOPE you will be actively involved in reviewing them, writing, commenting, and, most importantly, asking for evidence.  The Common Core standards have failed this generation of kids.  Only we, the parents of those kids who were short-changed, can help prevent it from continuing.  

*As a side note, I highly recommend this $5 e-book written by a long-term teacher with a Psychology degree.  https://www.amazon.com/Perfectly-Incorrect-Psychologically-Cognitively-Unsound-ebook/dp/B00Y7BM2OA  In short, there is no research to back up Common Core.  There's a lot of research to indicate that it's the exact opposite of what will work to teach kids.

A Thankful Heart Is the Greatest Virtue: Informed and Involved

'A thankful heart is not only the greatest virtue, but the parent of all other virtues.' --Cicero

I want to start by thanking all of you for your support throughout these past 6 years for the principles that I have tried to stand for.  It was especially felt during this past legislative session with the numbers of calls, texts, and emails that were sent to our legislators.  I am grateful to all of our legislators, even those I vehemently disagree with, for taking the many hours of time and energy and the mocks and scorns of the populace that they are oath-bound to represent.  But I am even more grateful to you, the many moms and dads, everyday people, who are willing to take a little time out of your day to defend the family, protect parents' rights, and demand that parents and teacher decide what knowledge is of most worth.

I am writing to once again enlist your aid: To Run for Public Office or to Support Another Who Shares Your Principles.  You can FILE to run up to THIS THURSDAY, March 17, at the County Elections Office (in Utah County, that's in Provo).

The point of running for office is about the principles that you are willing to stand up and defend. Do you want to defend the family?  Do you want to defend individual freedom?  Do you want to support parents and teachers deciding what knowledge is of most worth to pass along to our children?  If so, you qualify.  The goal of a government 'of the people, by the people, and for the people' is that the people are the ones who are involved, overseeing it and running it.  If you haven't served as a state or county delegate, if you haven't attended a caucus meeting, if you haven't filed to run for office, think seriously about doing so.  You are who we need in the country, not those who seek office for power or glory, but who seek it to maintain freedom and liberty.  

FIRST, for school board.  Abraham Lincoln said, "The philosophy of the school room in one generation is the philosophy of the government in the next."  I would argue that who is elected to Local and State School Board positions could have a greater impact on the direction of our country than the president.  (And as the Founders understood it, it really should.)

Alpine School District, ASD4 (PG/Lindon), ASD6 (Lehi), ASD7 (East Orem).  The only incumbent seeking re-election is Scott Carlson in ASD6.  I do not believe that any office should go uncontested, and certainly, any office where those running do not share the vast majority of your principles.  If you have ever thought, "Why don't we have anyone I like running for office", that is a call to arms.  You should be running.

In our predominantly LDS culture, we are used to taking upon ourselves leadership responsibilities and rotating that responsibility around to different members of the ward family.  In a similar manner, our Founders felt that public office should be rotated around to the different community members as a sense of civic obligation and personal duty.  It was assumed that most people would be willing and able to serve 2 - 4 year terms, and then return home to their families, their farms, and their livelihoods. Politics was never supposed to be a professional occupation.  And if you've ever wondered about why we are headed in the direction that we are, I would emphatically argue it is BECAUSE average people don't run for public office.  Many years ago, William F. Buckley, paraphrasing, said that he'd rather be governed by the first 535 names in the New York Phonebook than by the members of Congress. And yet, THAT is exactly what our Founders envisioned: everday people, representing their neighbors, their families, and their friends.

Opportunities for public service are just that, opportunities for service.  Here are several that I would ask you to seriously consider.

1. Attend your party's caucus meeting on March 22.  (An excellent article on the caucus is here.)

2.Vote in the Presidential Preference Poll (this IS the presidential primary for Utah).
3. Run for State or County delegate at your precinct or support someone who shares your principles.
4. Run for Public Office yourself, unless you find someone who shares your principles.  Then campaign on their behalf.  (Money is good, but time is better.)

Some Public Offices that are up for election this year. For more information, go here.

Local:
ASD 4, 6, and 7: If you are in one of those areas, think seriously about running for office.

County:
State Senator
State House
Utah County Commission, Seat C


State:
State School Board (My specific area is not up, but half the State Board seats are.  In UT County: 11, 12, and 13)
State Attorney General
State Auditor
State Treasurer
Governor/Lt. Governor

Federal:
US House of Representatives (all seats)
US Senate (1 seat)
President/Vice-President

Most people are unaware that every two years 100% of the US House of Representatives and 33% of the US Senate are up for election.

In Utah, 100% of the State House of Representatives and 50% of the State Senate are up for election.

We, the People, have the opportunity to completely change the direction things are going every two years, or to reinforce what is being done.  And sometimes we reinforce it by our apathy.

Informed and Involved is the only way to maintain freedom.  And it isn't once every four years by voting for president.  The most important elections are those closest to you!  It is our responsibility to be informed and then to be involved.

Thomas Jefferson said, "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free,.. it expects what never was and never will be.  If we are to guard against ignorance and remain free, it is the responsibility of every American to be informed."

More Possible State Laws: Parental Rights Under Attack

Update: Feb. 16, 2016: The House Ed Committee voted against passing HB164 out of committee and on to the rest of the House.  Please thank Reps Fawson, Coleman, Lifferth, Christensen, Noel, Gibson, and McCay for their Nay votes!  And thanks to all of you who wrote letters and to those who commented during the committee hearing!

Our parental rights are being challenged as our legislature is in the midst of its 45-day session.  What there is no dearth of is possible laws regarding education, and some of them directly impacting your responsibilities and rights as a parent.

It's important to remember that the role of government is to protect rights, to not to 'create common good' or to 'facilitate good outcomes and the best of intentions.'  Please remember what Road is paved with good intentions.  A quote usually misattributed to Voltaire reads, 'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.'  In making laws, it is important to put yourself on the receiving end of the penalties of the law.  If you are supportive of SAGE testing, please imagine if the tests were changed and you were not supportive.  How does someone else not having their child take the test impact your ability to raise your child as you see fit?  It doesn't.  This is what freedom looks like.  It isn't all of us agreeing all the time on what is 'good' or 'right' or 'best.'  It is allowing others 'maximum latitude' to live their lives in such a way that you don't interfere with them and they don't interfere with you.

HB164: Opt Out of Testing is being limited
Please email and, if possible, attend the committee hearing, tomorrow, Tuesday, Feb. 16, 2016 at 2 pm in House Building, Room 30.

This legislation does three things, all of them wrong.

1. Allows the end-of-year testing (aka SAGE summative) to be used for student grades and grade promotion (going from 3rd to 4th grade?  Not if you fail this test.)

2. Limits parents' ability to opt out of all software/testing packages purchased by the state, like everything on SAGE (summative, formative, and interim), as well as things like Utah Compose.  Anything where the state contracted directly with a vendor, then state is directly responsible for data privacy, terms of use, and so forth.  Since there are no state privacy directives, the current law allows parents the ability to just avoid any 'questionable' data-mining programs provided by the state.  HB164 will still allow you to opt out of end-of-year tests, but all the others will result in possible negative consequences for your child.

3. Allows the State Board to create incentives for students who take the test.  Imagine, for a moment, that you have decided to opt your child out of SAGE testing.  Your child's best friend takes the test and gets a reward.  Your child, of course, KNOWS that his/her friend got this reward for taking the test.  This creates a positive home environment that supports you as a parent in what way?  I'll just leave it at that.

Here's a link to the bill.  http://le.utah.gov/~2016/bills/static/HB0164.html

(One note: underlined words are what the bill is adding.  Strike-out words are those being removed by the bill.  All the other words are what is currently in the law and will be left alone.)

Email addresses for the House Education Committee:
blast@le.utah.gov; vlsnow@le.utah.gov; lavarchristensen@le.utah.gov; kimcoleman@le.utah.gov;
brucecutler@le.utah.gov; seliason@le.utah.gov; justinfawson@le.utah.gov; fgibson@le.utah.gov;
ehutchings@le.utah.gov; dlifferth@le.utah.gov; dmccay@le.utah.gov; csmoss@le.utah.gov; mnoel@kanab.net; mariepoulson@le.utah.gov;

Please keep your remarks respectful and to the point.  My letter is listed below.

Additionally, Alpine's Board has asked our Assistant Superintendent, Rob Smith, to assist us at the legislature with bills that we all support or oppose unanimously, as well as, to articulate the principles upon which we have unanimity.  You can keep abreast of things that the Board supports, as a whole, at this link on our district's website.  http://alpineschools.org/legislature/  Since our board is quite diverse, I believe it is very important and impactful when we all agree on an issue.  We have, a few times in the past, weighed in on legislation, but are trying to do more.  Mr. Smith has an excellent rapport with our legislators, and I am pleased that he was willing to assist us in this manner.  It has been determined that Mr. Smith will discuss the board priorities and principles, but will not state that the board is supportive or opposed to any legislation in which we are not 100% agreed.  I believe this is an excellent position for us to take. 

SB38: Unanimous opposition by Alpine School Board
One of the bills that our board unanimously opposes is SB38, school funding amendments.  While many of us are supportive of charter schools, SB38 creates a scenario where the legislature decides charters need more money, and then takes it from the district schools.  As a result, the board will raise property taxes to compensate.  I expect to give a much broader description in the near future.  But, suffice it to say that I find it wrong for one entity to essentially delegate the consequences of their actions to another, e.g. make the local boards raise property taxes while the legislature washes its hands of it.  There are many more transparent options, if you find that charters need more money.  (On that, not everyone is agreed, including me.  From what I can tell, Alpine gets less money per student than the charters we would be giving our money to  Again, that's wrong.  While the charters in our area may get less money than the districts statewide, they will not be getting money from those districts, just Alpine.)


The following bills are ones I oppose that are generally not supported by the full board, but probably not as heavily opposed for their content as just for the idea of why should we have more programs with more strings instead of giving the money to the local districts and charters and letting us decide, based on your input.

SB67: More Family Replacement/Data Gathering Infrastructure
This bill creates an infrastructure for data gathering, and a three-way partnership for funding between private entities, the state, and the feds.  I'm sure there will be no problem with determining who is to blame for any failures when there is no real consistent overseer. (Sorry, for my sarcasm.)  I will go into more detail on this one, as well.  But the data collected, that includes physical and mental health information, can be shared with pretty much anyone who can claim to be part of an educational program.  Additionally, some of the 'pilot' schools and United Way are already asking parents to sign away their privacy rights under the Federal privacy act (from 1974) FERPA (which is mostly meaningless to begin with).  Health data is usually protected by a much broader law, called HIPAA.  At the very least, even if you believe that this program will be awesome (it sounds very nice and will help), student medical information should be protected at the higher HIPAA level.  The bill should be amended to require this level of protection. 

HB277: More technology grants
This bill 'allows' local districts and charters to apply for state grants for technology. More strings because the state can't trust us at the local level: board members, parents, and teachers, to do what they want.  So, they will call it locally-led, since we can propose what we want to be in the grant, but it does limit what we can do with it.  We have to apply for the grant (more paperwork and administrative overhead), administer it with the appropriate 'accountability' to the state, and next year, it might all go away, so it can't be anything very long term.  On the flip side, they could just take that money and put it on the WPU (Weighted Pupil Unit), which is how the state pays each school per student that they educate.  The money on the WPU, the more flexibility we have as a board to spend the way you would want.  The biggest issue in our district seems to be class sizes and building new schools for growing areas.  In short, it is possible that the best use of that money in Alpine would be for reducing class sizes, not giving everyone a Chromebook to be used in a class of 35.  But if HB277 passes, then the state has decided that there is no circumstance where this money should be used for anything other than what they think it should be used for.  The sad thing is that chances are we would use it the way they want, for the most part.  But it is NOT local control (despite what was said in the committee meeting).  It's the same as allowing you the ability to walk anywhere you choose...within the 9x9 confines of a prison cell.  And even if you never would want to walk outside those 81 sq.ft., there is no freedom in not being able to. 

Oh, and there is some evidence that this program nicely matches the technology initiative that is being pushed by the White House.  One parent's well-documented concerns to this affect were dismissed with a question about whether or not President Obama had helped write the bill.  You don't have to have the feds write something for your "plan" wherever it came from to 'fit' what they are proposing (good or bad).  A substitute motion to prohibit the use of federal funds or incentives in funding this program was rejected in the committee. 

Following legislation during this period is very important for maintaining our freedom and our liberties.  The best place to go is: www.le.utah.gov.  You can search bills by number, sponsor, or topic.  Every bill will go before a committee.  If passed out of the committee, it goes before the full body (either House or Senate, wherever the bill originated).  If it passes, then it goes to the other chamber's committee.  If it passes, then to the full body of that chamber.  If it passes, then on to the Governor for his signature.  So, there are many steps along the way in which we can weigh in, and help support or prevent legislation.  You voice can make a BIG DIFFERENCE with our legislators.  And be aware that so many other organizations have lobbying arms, including the Utah School Boards Association, Tech Firms, etc.  There is no lobbying organization for you.  So, be involved and make your voice heard.

And when it comes to your rights as parents, I leave you with the wise words of our Former Supreme Court Justice, Dallin H. Oaks, ruling in Re: JP in 1982.

The rights inherent in family relationships—husband-wife, parent-child, and sibling—are the most obvious examples of rights retained by the people. They are “natural,” “intrinsic,” or “prior” in the sense that our Constitutions presuppose them, as they presuppose the right to own and dispose of property....

The integrity of the family and the parents' inherent right and authority to rear their own children have been recognized as fundamental axioms of Anglo-American culture, presupposed by all our social, political, and legal institutions. “To protect the [individual] in his constitutionally guaranteed right to form and preserve the family is one of the basic principles for which organized government is established."... This parental right transcends all property and economic rights. It is rooted not in state or federal statutory or constitutional law, to which it is logically and chronologically prior, but in nature and human instinct....

We conclude that the right of a parent not to be deprived of parental rights without a showing of unfitness, abandonment, or substantial neglect is so fundamental to our society and so basic to our constitutional order that it ranks among those rights referred to in Article I, Section 25 of the Utah Constitution and the Ninth Amendment of the United State Constitution as being retained by the people... 

Family autonomy helps to assure the diversity characteristic of a free society. There is no surer way to preserve pluralism than to allow parents maximum latitude in rearing their own children. Much of the rich variety in American culture has been transmitted from generation to generation by determined parents who were acting against the best interest of their children, as defined by official dogma. Conversely, there is no surer way to threaten pluralism than to terminate the rights of parents who contradict officially approved values imposed by reformers empowered to determine what is in the “best interest” of someone else's child.

******************************************************
My letter to our House Reps on the Education Committee asking them to OPPOSE HB164.

Please vote no on HB164 for the following reasons.

 

1. It allows end-of-year state tests to be used for individual student grades or grade promotion with no proof that the tests are valid or reliable or should even be used in such a fashion. 

 

2. It creates possible incentives for test takers, so the child who is opted out can watch those who did take the test (like the state told them to) get rewarded.  Does this not create a situation where a child is to be shown how 'wrong' their parent's decision was?  Furthermore, the child becomes the pawn between the schools and the parents.  It's really 'blackmailing' parents to 'encourage' them to allow the testing, so their child doesn't think they are mean and won't let them have the reward for test taking.  Since state law says that parents are primary and the state is secondary and supportive, I fail to see how this is supportive of the parent's wishes. 

3. It limits parents' ability to opt their kids out of anything but the end-of-year tests.  There is not demonstrable protection for student privacy and any sort of understanding as to how student data may or may not be used, as per the contract with our testing vendor, American Institutes for Research (AIR).  Not allowing parents to opt out of all versions of this testing, does not resolved the original data privacy concerns that parents have.  Those still exist.

If you'd like more information, please see below, or feel free to contact me at your convenience.

 

Even if you think there is no concern with SAGE testing, we should allow parents who do have concerns to protect their children as they see fit.  To limit this ability is to limit parental rights and to place the wishes and 'needs' of the state above that of the parents, and the individual child.  This is wrong, even if done with the goal of improving education. 

Thank you so much for your service to our state.

Wendy Hart

Alpine School Board, ASD2: Highland, Alpine, Cedar Hills

More information:

1. SAGE testing has never been validated.  In 2014, I and two of my fellow board members, Brian Halladay and Paula Hill, requested information from then associate superintendent Dr. Judy Park regarding validation and privacy (see below) concerns, and received no response.  The state of Florida, which purchased its test questions from Utah, attempted to do an independent validity study on Florida's version of SAGE.  There is some question about the validating organization truly being independent, there is some interesting information that we should be aware of.  Florida currently requires passage of this test for graduation and certain grade-level promotions. However, one of the conclusions was that Florida's test was not valid for individual student grades or promotions. 

I appreciate that teachers are being evaluated based on test scores.  I believe it is wrong (even if the test was valid) to use this as part of the teach evaluation process for many reasons that I won't cite here.  But teachers are adults.  It is more wrong to penalize minor children who don't pass the test and potentially impact them for the rest of their lives. 

Also, setting the proficiency scores was a very subjective process that began, not with an analysis of the content of the questions, but with a straight list of which questions had more right answers.  (The analysis of some of the questions, came later.) The assumption was that those with the least right answers were the most difficult.  That may be true in most cases, but it could be equally true for confusing or invalid questions, as well as those with incorrect answers.  Then the test was 'normed' to make sure there was a 40 - 45% proficiency outcome to match the NAEP and ACT tests. So, we created a target where 60% of the kids would be considered failing, and then we hit it.  If we know that our goal is to have 60% of the students fail, and we set the bar that way, how is it fair to then allow those scores to be used in student grades?

2. This sets a very dangerous precedent where the state is allowing parents to be set up to play the 'bad guy'.  Creating a possible rift between parent and child, even in the short term, should never be something the state sanctions, let alone agrees to. 

3. The SAGE platform comprises three types of testing: a. summative (end-of-year), b.interim (same or similar questions to end-of-year, not seen by the teacher, but can be given multiple times a year for practice and benchmarking), and c. formative (a software system that includes a databank of questions that teachers can select and/or contribute to for chapter tests, daily assignments).  Of the three types, the formative tests are the most insidious for data collection.  The VP of AIR, Jon Cohen, told a member of the parent panel that every mouse click and latency measures (how long it takes for the child's actions), as well as the actual submitted answers are being collected on the formative platform.  There is a huge amount of data being collected on every child that logs on.  Our contract does not limit what can or cannot be done with that data outside of their not sharing it with a 3rd party without the USOE's (not a parent's) consent.  AIR has over 20 subsidiary organizations that are involved in policy-making recommendations and other functions at the national level.  There would be no limitation placed on any of them or their employees on how that data was used in their own internal research or analysis.

My main concerns with the SAGE tests are: 1) there is no validation to show that what we are told is being tested, actually is what is being tested. 2) no guarantee of data privacy. In 2012, the US Dept of Ed changed their privacy regulations, allowing any personal student data to be shared with a 3rd party without parental knowledge or consent, as long as it was for an 'educational program.'  It's important to note that the term 'educational program' is undefined.  As a database analyst, by trade, it is important to note that there is so much data being collected on our kids in education, as well as other areas, these days, that it makes data privacy almost a mythical creature.  If I, as a parent, choose to limit that data collection on SAGE, I should have that right. 

 

The summative tests are the only type of SAGE testing that is being retained for parents to opt out of without consequences.  I spoke with Sen. Osmond (the previous sponsor and author of the current language in state code) about these three types of SAGE testing, and it was his intent to allow parents the ability to opt out of all three versions of SAGE without naming it specifically.  At the end of the day, we are, again, assuming that the state knows best, and parents should not be allowed to protect their children as they see fit. 

Utah's New Science Standards: National and Lower Quality

You have until Monday, November, 9th to comment on the proposed Utah Science Standards that are, essentially, the Next Generation Science Standards. 

Please watch and share this video, and then comment for our State Board. 

Why The Next Generation Science Standards Are Wrong For Utah

Comment here: http://www.schools.utah.gov/CURR/science/Revision.aspx  Even though, the form requests specific comments on specific standards, it is perfectly acceptable to provide general comments on the standards as a whole or the process as a whole.

Unless massive amounts of people speak up, the adoption of these standards is already a done deal.


The legislature has made public comment and parent committees a requirement, since We, the People, complained about this lack when the Common Core standards were adopted.  Take advantage of the opportunity to weigh in on what our children should learn about science in this state, and how much of it should be exactly the same as every other state.  (Just curious how we get diversity of thought in scientific inquiry, if everyone is taught the same things in the same way?)

Here is a link to the Next Generation Science Standards that, if we adopt grades 6-8, will almost assuredly be adopted throughout K-12.  http://www.nextgenscience.org/  For fun, search certain terms in their search box to see where the emphasis of the K-12 standards would be.  Make sure to put things in quotes, e.g. "digestive system" or "climate change" or electron to look for those words as a pair.  Utah has made some adjustments, but if they are essentially NGSS, rest assured that all the materials that will be used in the classroom will be based on NGSS.  The changes Utah has made will have minimal impact.

Every set of standards, of late, that has been adopted or considered has been based on national standards.  There is no evidence that national standards improve education, but it is true that parents have less say and less impact on what is taught in their local schools the further away they are from those who make the decisions.

For more information on the standards, see my previous posts.  Please share with 5 of your friends and submit your comments to the State Board!

State Board needs to Prove the new standards are better: http://wendy4asd.blogspot.com/2015/05/state-standards-burden-of-proof-rests.html

Science is Absolute, but Man's Understanding of Science is what Shifts: A Parent Letter
http://wendy4asd.blogspot.com/2015/06/parent-letter-on-new-science-standards.html

NGSS and SEEd: National Science Standards?
http://wendy4asd.blogspot.com/2015/05/walks-and-talks-like-national-science.html

Parent Letter on New Science Standards: "I believe that science is absolute, but man's understanding of science is what shifts."

We are nearing the end of the 90-day public comment period on the proposed Utah Science Standards (that are a direct copy and paste of the Next Generation Science Standards).  Please take the time TODAY to read the standards and to fill out the survey for our State Board of Education.  If you don't comment, you get what those in power want you to have.  The NGSS were adopted by the Kansas State Board of Education.  A lawsuit was brought against them, stating that the NGSS violated First Amendment rights by promoting an anti-theistic worldview.  The lawsuit was dismissed, stating that, "parents and children who are plaintiffs as “bystanders” whose injuries from the standards are abstract, rather than concrete and particular, opponents argue."  You may like the standards, but you have to wonder if parents and the children who are subjected to these standards do not have legal 'standing' then who does get to sue about standards?  So, the answer is to weigh in before they are adopted!

You can see Grades 6 -8 here: http://www.schools.utah.gov/CURR/science/Revision.aspx  The NGSS standards are located here: http://www.nextgenscience.org/next-generation-science-standards And (MOST IMPORTANT), the survey can be found here: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/SciencePublicReview You can make comments about the process, as well as the specific standards, even though the survey doesn't mention the process.  For my concerns, go here. 

I am sharing with you a letter from Julie King, a mother, a trained social worker, and involved parent about her concerns with adopting the NGSS.  It is reprinted with her permission.  Please note, she uses anatomically correct terms and discusses concerns with the national human sexuality standards, as well.  I find her human sexuality standards discussion relevant, but will leave it to her letter to explain why.

****************************************************************************
Dear State School Board Members:

I wanted to share my thoughts about the science standards.  I have several concerns with the standards.  First, my greatest concern with the standards is our own reliance on our limited human understanding.  I believe that science is absolute, but man's understanding of science is what shifts. I remember being taught in college that infants do not feel pain and I thought that was the most ridiculous thing I had ever heard. Guess what? That was recently found to be false. But up until about 1987, it was common for infants to be given paralytics for surgery, but no pain medication. It sounds pretty barbaric.
http://www.medicaldaily.com/brain-scans-show-babies-feel-pain-adults-world-first-proves-what-every-mother-knows-330092

We are constantly learning things we had no idea about from neuroplasticity to whether or not Pluto is a planet.  We used to believe that cigarettes were great and that nicotine was not addictive.  Once again, the substances or science did not change, our understanding of it did.  Part of science curriculum should be addressing these limitations, learning about how we have made mistakes and corrected them, as well as studying scientists such as Madame Curie, Galileo, and Edison.

Second, I have a problem with the USOE presenting the SEED as Utah-created when it is plagiarized from Next Generation Science Standards.  Plagiarism is “the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own.”  As far as I can tell, the only adjustment to the NGSS has been renumerating the standards for SEED as well as removing 2 words.  Other than that, it is a word-for-word paste and copy.  In addition to that, Fordham recently evaluated our current standards as well as NGSS.  Utah standards were given a B and NGSS was given a C.  Why are we trading our science standards for poorer ones?  If we need to update our standards, we should do that and not take a color-coded science standard and assume it is superior because it is a national standard.
http://edexcellence.net/publications/final-evaluation-of-NGSS.html


Third, there are holes in the NGSS.  There is a lack of computer science as well as chemistry and the lack of any human anatomy is what raises a red flag for me.  Why would we completely eliminate human anatomy?  Here comes the crazy conspiracy theory- because once that hole in the standards is “discovered,” we will be able to patch it with the National Sexual Education Standards.  But that is crazy, right?  Utah would never adopt national sex ed standards.  Just like we were told repeatedly we would never adopt national science standards.   This is actually my field of expertise.  I am a social worker and have taught child abuse prevention programs to preschoolers up to PhD candidates.  I have worked with abused children and sex offenders, rape victims and domestic violence victims.  I have also been a foster parent.  I am not a prude.  My children have learned and used anatomically correct terminology since they learned to speak.  My sons learned that they have a penis and my girls learned they have a vagina.  They have also been taught about what is appropriate and inappropriate touch.  I have no problem being forthright with my children.  We talk about everything from date rape to roofies.  Those are hard conversations and best answered by parents in their home, articulating their belief systems and principles.  I have been trained in how to talk to children about sexuality and appropriate boundaries.  This is what the standards say-“By the end of 2nd grade, students should be able to:  use proper names for body parts, including male and female anatomy.”  This standard is actually a K-2 standard which means that this content can be introduced in kindergarten.  My kindergarten-aged children were able to do this without a problem.  But this was taught at home.  Now imagine that Johnny blurts out that Uncle Jimmy touches his penis.  The other kids laugh, the teacher reacts in a shocked manner, and Johnny feels ashamed.  Johnny is teased on the playground and called names.  When we put teachers in a place to teach something this sensitive when they are not trained properly, we revictimize kids.  Do I want Johnny to disclose this abuse?  Absolutely!  But I want it to be done in a way that makes him feel safe and does not revictimize him.  And throwing in a professional development once a year about teaching sex ed standards is not enough.  The potential to damage our children with sex ed standards when not taught appropriately is astounding.  And our most vulnerable children-those who suffer abuse-will be the ones who pay the highest price.

Fourth, there is obvious bias in the standards.  By only looking at the grade 6-8 standards, we lose the overview of what NGSS truly is.  We need to look at the K-12 standards.  Let’s be real-we are not going to adopt NGSS for 6-8 and not the rest of the grades.  I was taught evolution and I have no problem with teaching about global warming or climate change.  But I also think this goes back to my first comment that what we understand about science constantly changes.  In my sex ed class in high school, I was taught that watching porn is a normal and sexually healthy activity that everybody does.  We are now starting to see how addictive and poisonous pornography is.  We need to be aware of what we teach as fact and what we present as theory.  One of the points in science we should focus on is asking why? and constantly questioning what we feel we know.  Part of true science is being willing to question things and doubt.  We need to look at what our focus is.  When they are over 50 mentions of climate change and only one reference to electric circuits, we are overemphasizing one idea and excluding others.  Am I ok with my kids learning about climate change?  Absolutely!  But I am not OK with my kindergartener being asked to solve global warming .  The following is a kindergarten standard:
Communicate solutions that will reduce the impact of humans on the land, water, air, and/or other living things in the local environment.* [Clarification Statement: Examples of human impact on the land could include cutting trees to produce paper and using resources to produce bottles. Examples of solutions could include reusing paper and recycling cans and bottles.]
Do you know what kindergarten science should be?  The five senses, weather, and the life cycle of a butterfly and ladybug.  Maybe planting seeds and learning about how plants grow.  That’s it.  When was the last time when you were in a kindergarten class with 25 active children?  With less than 3 hours a day, kindergarten should largely be about reading and learning to follow rules.  Rules like keep your hands and feet to yourself and take turns.  Not about rationing paper so that less trees are cut down.

I hope that you seriously consider the feedback from parents as we are often in classrooms and see the challenges that teachers and their students face when we apply top-down approaches to education.

Julie King
Mother of 4 children (ages 16, 13, 11, and 8)
School Community Council representative for an Alpine School District School and a charter school (UCAS)
PTA member and Westlake council president-elect

Walks and Talks like National Science Standards But....Really an Ostrich

Come Wednesday, May 6  @ 7pm to the public comment meeting for Utah's Newly Proposed Science Standards being held at Provo School District Office, 280 West 940 North, Provo, Utah, 84604. 

The new science standards are All That and a Kit-Kat.  (or that's what you're supposed to believe).  In point of fact, there are a lot of problems with the standards...starting with the fact that they are a cut-and-paste version of a set of national science standards (designed to not be exactly Common Core science, hence the new name, but created by the same organization anyway.) This is the chance to make a difference.  In a couple of years, when you see the problem, it will be much harder to fix. 

The Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) are the next set of 'state-led, not national, but adopted by lots of states, nationally, standards' that aren't really Common Core; although, they were developed by the same organization (Achieve, Inc) that started us off on the Common Core standards for English and Math.  (If you call them Common Core Science Standards, you will be ridiculed.  They changed the name....walks like a duck, talks like a duck...Ostrich--with webbed feet and much smaller!)

In May, 2009, a concern was raised by State Board Member Kim Burningham, that the adoption of a national set of standards (Common Core) in a couple of subjects (English and math) would lead to subsequent adoption of additional subjects. (Audio, May 1, 2009, National Common Standards)

In July, 2011, this same concern was raised at our Alpine School Board retreat, after the adoption of Common Core.  I was, personally assured we wouldn't adopt another set of national standards, by then-Curriculum director at the State Office, Sydnee Dickson, "I do want to address, Wendy, one of the comments you made about science and social studies. Our board has been very clear, that if national standards are developed, or even a consortium of states come together that we will not adopt those because there are just too many philosophical variances within those, and so, they've just been really clear, up front, that we're not going there." (1st Audio file @ 38:45: http://sbs.alpinedistrict.org/cgi-bin/WebObjects/eAgenda.woa/wa/displayMeeting?meetingID=850)

At the beginning of the Common Core implementation process, we were repeatedly assured, from all sides, that national science and social studies standards would never be adopted by Utah...until now.

While there are several concerns about the parent panel not knowing that these standards were, in fact, the NGSS, and how long it took to figure out that the 'science writing team' was really the science 'cut and paste from the NGSS document' team, the bigger issues are:

1) Parental Control: Parents, during the public comment meetings, were told that not everything that exists in the NGSS has been presented to the public.  The teachers will get much more detail on what the standards actually are. "It would be too overwhelming" for parents to actually see and know and understand what their kids are being taught.

2) Lower standards: Fordham Foundation rated Utah's current science standards 'Clearly Superior' to the NGSS standards.  Utah has B-rated science standards and NGSS are C-rated.  Why would we exchange our locally-developed/controlled, better standards for something sub-par, just to stay behind with other states? (Sarcasm alert!) Clearly, we wouldn't want to be known for our better standards and our superior science education, when we could have students held back to be common and below what they could be.  This way, we don't make the other states feel bad.  

From Fordham's review:

"Among the shortcomings of the NGSS is its acute dearth of math content, even in situations where math is essential to the study and proper understanding of the science that students are being asked to master." [emphasis mine]

Oh, and Fordham LOVES national standards and Bill Gates' money.  These standards are so bad, that even they are not willing to endorse them for states like Utah.

3) Science appreciation, not science: One reviewer, Ze'ev Wurman testified before the Ohio House that the NGSS will create students who have an appreciation for science but who can't do science.  His conclusion states:

"The proposed New Generation Science Standards are flawed and aimed at preparing science and technology consumers rather than technology creators. They offer a false promise of enhancing STEM [Science, Technology, Engineering, Math] preparedness..."

 4) Slanted perspectives: And our own State Superintendent, Brad Smith, at an educational forum held at Westlake HS last Friday said that some of the topics in these standards present a one-sided view of an issue.  He is hoping to 'tweak' these standards to make them acceptable.

5) Before-the-fact Training: All public school districts and charter schools were invited to send staff to a training at Weber State last fall to receive training in these new science standards.  Why train teachers/curriculum directors on something that might not happen?  Why are these standards so incredible that it requires a full-day seminar, before the fact, to properly train everyone?  Something smells like a duck too. 

6) Controversial: A group in Kansas has filed a lawsuit, and is now appealing on the basis that these standards prohibit a worldview that is compatible with a belief in God.  Wyoming's legislature has blocked the adoption of NGSS.  This is not a basic set of science standards without controversy.  Could that explain the need for a Utah writing team and a different name?

Please come tomorrow and comment.  Contact the State board and ask them to scrap this attempt at giving us lower standards in the interest of being the same as other states. Please do not accept the idea that we can tweak standards we don't want. 

A friend of mine who analyzed textbook bias in college indicated that the hardest form of bias to spot is the one of omission.  You can see what is there, but you have to step back and see what is missing.  What is the picture of the world these standards are painting?  According to Mr. Wurman, one where kids are consumers of science, but don't have the abilities to be scientists, themselves....

Oh, and they're not a duck....I mean NGSS or national standards or ....!