2020 Education Legislation that Must be Opposed: Feb. 25, 2020

Lots of really lousy education bills are on the docket for tomorrow, Tuesday, Feb. 25.  First, in the Senate Ed Committee at 8am, and then in the House Ed Committee at 4pm.  If you are able to attend and comment on any of them, that would be great!  Please pick at least one bill (if you can’t do all of them) and email the appropriate group, as listed below.

Quick info: How to read a bill.

If something is underlined, it will be added to the law, if the bill passes.  If something is crossed out, then that will be removed from the law, if the bill passes.  Everything else is existing law.

Quick Info: How to email committee members.

See the list of Senate and House Ed committee emails listed below.  It’s best to put in the subject line something like: Vote NO on HB114Sub2 ((that means House Bill 114 Substitute 2).

Then address your email to each individual Rep or Senator.  You can certainly copy and paste the body of the email.  Make it short, sweet and to the point.  If you want to add more information, you can finish the email, and then say, for more information on this…and basically add a PS, so they can go as long or as short as they’d like.  They need to get these emails ASAP, as the Senate will probably not read emails once the committee hearing starts at 8am.  If you are a constituent of one of the committee members, please let them know that.

*Senate Ed Committee: 8am Write the Senators and ask them to VOTE NO!

HB114Sub2: You can read it here.  https://le.utah.gov/~2020/bills/static/HB0114.html : Early Learning Training and Assessment

This bill allocates $17.55 Million to establish additional testing and support coaches and early learning plans for math and reading.  It’s important to know that our current Math and English standards (which, sadly, are still Common Core) were declared to be developmentally inappropriate for grades K-3 by 500 Early Childhood Experts in 2010.  I would argue if we fixed our current math and English standards, we wouldn’t need to waste $17.5 Million in trying to assess and coach our teachers to teach our kids stuff that isn’t helping them read and do math.

SB136: https://le.utah.gov/~2020/bills/static/SB0136.html Healthy Lifestyles Revisions

For those of you who are wary of CSE (Comprehensive S3xuality Education—typo intentional to avoid spam filters), this is the bill to change our school health requirements to be broadened.  Incidentally, if you go to the CDC website, you will find that Utah has one of the lowest rates of STIs of any of the states.  The states with higher rates, many of them, have implemented CSE programs.  But because we have such a low rate, the health department touts the fact that we have a huge increase.  Yes, but that’s a percentage increase from a very, very low number to a higher number, that is still low.  It’s important to understand that Public Education used to be about those things that we could all agree on (2+2=4).  Once you start down this road, there will be very little agreement, and that is problematic. 

Some concerns:

Changes communicable disease to infectious disease.  While there is obvious overlap, infectious disease is, by definition, a disease that is transmitted via bacteria, or virus, etc.  The focus of infectious disease is the “infecting agent”.  Communicable disease is a disease that is spread via human to human contact in some form.  The focus of communicable disease is the human transmission to others.  In light of this being a health course and not an immunology course, the current wording “communicable” is probably more relevant.  See lines 60-62 and lines 68-70.  Current law allows emphasizes the importance of abstinence before marriage and fidelity after marriage as methods of preventing communicable diseases.  The references to marriage are removed, and abstinence is listed as a method for preventing certain infectious diseases.  Also, current law prohibits advocacy or encouragement of contraceptive devices.  This would be removed if this bill passes.  Line 187 includes a requirement that the course include “healthy relationships”, but there is no definition of what a healthy relationship is.  207-209 requires the local district  or charter (LEA) to report to the State Board the percentage of children who are not opted out of the course.  This will allow the state to know how many kids are not taking the courses, and will, in the future, no doubt lead to greater pressure on parents to have their kids take the courses.

**House Ed Committee: 4pm Write the House Reps and ask them to Vote No!

There are 3 bills that are extremely problematic.  1 that is mostly a waste of time and money.  I will list them in the order they are on the agenda, but the most egregious one is listed 3^rd (HB323).

SB0093Sub1: https://le.utah.gov/~2020/bills/static/SB0093.html Math and Science Opportunities for Students and Teachers

This bill will cost $4.8M.  The idea that the state decides to use this money up front for this purpose undermines local control.  That’s $4.8M that doesn’t go directly to the schools that choose not to participate in this program.  The real issue with students not learning math has nothing to do with not having the Opportunity provided in this bill (that’s mostly just money) and everything to do with the adoption of sub-par math standards (Common Core).  This bill is mostly just a waste of time and money that could be better spent elsewhere, especially at the local level in reducing class sizes.

SB0099: https://le.utah.gov/~2020/bills/static/SB0099.html School Leadership Development Amendments

This bill will create a mentor program for principals to the tune of $15.2 Million.  Similar to others, this takes $15.2 M off the table to be spent in any other way at the local level.  So, if you are sure principals being mentored is a higher priority than anything else your local district would spend that money on, then this is the bill for you.  But if you think maybe that’s a waste of money or that the local school district might prefer to use the money differently, then you should encourage your Reps to vote NO!  In Alpine School District, we already pay an annual fee to participate in the BYU Public School Partnership, along with 4 other districts.  As part of this partnership, we have a Principals/Leadership Academy that employees who are interested in becoming principals can take.  Also, ASD usually appoints principals from among applicants who have already spent a few years as assistant principals.  So, there is already a formal structure for mentoring.  Finally, in my years of knocking doors and talking to people, I have never received a single comment from the people that said we needed to spend more money on mentoring principals.

HB323: https://le.utah.gov/~2020/bills/static/HB0323.html School Mental Health Amendments (THIS IS THE REALLY  REALLY REALLY  BAD ONE!!!)

Because schools and teachers, especially are already overwhelmed, we are going to require the State Board to create a Mental Health screening tool that can be administered to every student in our public school setting.  We will either be creating a greater need to have mental health counselors in our schools to assist with this (instead of spending the money on actual reading, writing, and arithmetic) or we will delegate this to teachers.  It also opens up the possibility of parents being bullied into allowing their kids to be tested, and once tested, if a parent disagrees, then there is evidence that they went against the “state”.  Could Child Protective be called on parents who refuse?  It wouldn’t be out of the question.  Whenever we have societal problems, we tend to put all the focus on our public schools to “solve” the problem for us.  This is not the place to do mental health screenings.  Your pediatrician or a mental health counselor of the parent’s choosing would be the appropriate place for it.  Schools should focus on academics, art, etc.  They are to be supportive of parents.  They are not to replace parents. 

HB241: https://le.utah.gov/~2020/bills/static/HB0241.html Kindergarten Attendance Amendments

This make Kindergarten a required grade.  Currently, children are only required to attend school from ages 6-18.  This bill will require school from age 5.  Some problems (besides the obvious increased cost that will occur if more people put their kids in Kindergarten): Many students are not developmentally ready for Kindergarten at age 5.  Many parents choose to keep their kids home an extra year and then enroll them in Kindergarten at age 6.  You would be able to do this still, but you’d have to fill out a homeschooling affidavit, and then, see lines 131-134, the school board is required to give you information about the knowledge, skills, and competencies required before Grade 1. This is only required for homeschool Kindergarten.  Currently, there is no requirement other than if a parent requests this information for the other grades.  It is not a requirement for those who choose a private option.  Additionally, if children are not, yet, developmentally ready for school, it could create more students who are identified with learning disabilities or special needs.  Those students so identified would require more state (and federal) funding, as well as administration of IEPs (individual education plans), etc.  And as mentioned above, our current set of K-3 standards are developmentally inappropriate for K-3 children anyway. So, we’ll put more kids into a no-win situation.  All in all, there is no compelling reason to require Kindergarten attendance.

*Senators on the Senate Ed Committee:

Senator Henderson - dhenderson@le.utah.gov

Senator Davis - gdavis@le.utah.gov

Senator Fillmore - lfillmore@le.utah.gov

Senator Grover - keithgrover@le.utah.gov

Senator Hillyard - lhillyard@le.utah.gov

Senator Millner - amillner@le.utah.gov

Senator Reibe - kriebe@le.utah.gov

Senator Stevenson - jwstevenson@le.utah.gov

**Representatives on the House Ed Committee:

vlsnow@le.utah.gov

susanpulsipher@le.utah.gov

mballard@le.utah.gov

dnjohnson@le.utah.gov

blast@le.utah.gov

csmoss@le.utah.gov

jeffersonmoss@le.utah.gov

leeperry@le.utah.gov

vpeterson@le.utah.gov

mariepoulson@le.utah.gov

adamrobertson@le.utah.gov

swaldrip@le.utah.gov

christinewatkins@le.utah.gov

Rep. V. Lowry Snow (R), Chair 

Rep. Susan Pulsipher (R), Vice Chair 

Rep. Melissa G. Ballard (R) 

Rep. Dan N. Johnson (R) 

Rep. Bradley G. Last (R) 

Rep. Carol Spackman Moss (D) 

Rep. Jefferson Moss (R) 

Rep. Lee B. Perry (R) 

Rep. Val L. Peterson (R) 

Rep. Marie H. Poulson (D) 

Rep. Adam Robertson (R) 

Rep. Steve Waldrip (R) 

Rep. Christine F. Watkins (R) 

NGSS: Standards for Grades 5, 9-12. My Letter to the State Board

Dear State Board Members:

I am concerned with the standards-adoption process I've observed since 2010.  Due to a lack of opportunity for the public to be involved during the Common Core adoption process in June and August of 2010, state law changed to require parent advisory committees for standards.  However, I have not found those "safe-guards" of advisory panels to address the fundamental questions required for standards adoption.

Just like with the math standards, average parents who have concerns with the current standards or with proposed new standards, do not have the time, energy or money to be able to effectively combat them with organizations that have full-time staff and who receive more time to discuss, debate, and propose than the 2 minute comment period allowed or by sending everything in an email. To that end, I hope you will forgive the length of my email, as I am unable to attend the committee meeting, and I want to include as much information as possible.  

I would like to address my main concerns with further adoption of the NGSS for science, and then address the questions I hope you will answer before voting on them.

CONCERNS WITH NGSS

1. ACT scores do not support switching to NGSS. In 2015, when I first wrote about my concerns in adopting NGSS, Utah scored higher in science on the ACT than the national average.  Utah tests ALL of its juniors on the ACT, which would naturally lower the ACT average when compared with states who allow for self-selection.  Utah's science ACT scores were higher than all those states who test 100% of their juniors as well (as per the 2014 stats, which were the latest ones available at that time:  you can see them here: https://web.archive.org/web/20150915050646/https://www.act.org/newsroom/data/2014/pdf/CCCR14-StatebyStateScoreSummary.pdf.)  

Since then, ACT has redesigned their test, and Utah has adopted NGSS (pretty much) for grades 6-8.  As of 2017 (https://www.act.org/content/dam/act/unsecured/documents/cccr2017/CCCR_National_2017.pdf, see pg. 14), Utah is one of 17 states, testing all its juniors.  Our science percentages (on benchmark) are exceeded only by 3 states (CO, MN, WI), none of which have adopted NGSS: http://ngss.nsta.org/About.aspx) In a quick search, I have been unable to find "raw scores" like I did for the 2014 ACT.  

Either way, if you think ACT is a good measurement of science mastery, then I'm unsure why we would jettison something that is working for something that hasn't shown itself to work for those states who have adopted these standards.

2. Fordham Foundation rates UTAH "clearly superior to NGSS.  NGSS is rated a C.  Fordham rated Utah's science standards (pre-NGSS for grades 6-8) a B, 7/10.  Please read their critique.  (http://edex.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/publication/pdfs/20130612-NGSS-Final-Review_7.pdf)  

A few quotes:

"In reality, there is virtually no mathematics, even at the high school level, where it is essential to the learning of physics and chemistry. Rather, the standards seem to assiduously dodge the mathematical demands inherent in the subjects covered."

"NGSS physical science coverage is mediocre throughout grades K–5. Sadly, its quality declines rapidly and steadily in middle school, and still further at the high school level, where little positive can be said. Indeed, the physical science standards fail to lay the foundation for advanced study in high school and beyond, and there is so little advanced content that it would be impossible to derive a high school physics or chemistry course from the content included in the NGSS."

"In reality, we found virtually no mathematics in the physical science standards, even at the high school level, where it is essential to the learning of physics and chemistry. Rather, the standards seem to avoid the mathematical demands inherent in the subjects covered." 

"A second troubling problem is that some topics are poorly covered—or omitted entirely—throughout the grades. Energy, and heat energy in particular, is a prime example of an important topic that is poorly addressed."

"Third, the NGSS also seem to shun precise scientific vocabulary, often resulting in muddled meaning."

"High school physical science content is virtually nonexistent. Entire areas that are fundamental to the understanding of physics and chemistry—and essential prerequisites for advanced study—are omitted. Among these are chemical formulas, chemical equations, the mole concept and its applications, kinematics, thermodynamics, and pretty much all of modern physics, including all of the advances of physics since about 1950, as well as their transformative engineering applications." 

"Nor is energy ever covered with adequate depth and rigor (as explained further below). The idea of building on earlier non-rigorous ideas of energy and making them rigorous at the high school level is glaringly absent. " 

"High school chemistry is largely absent from the NGSS. What little content is included is too often found in vaguely worded performance expectations that assume mastery of knowledge not previously introduced. The standards are further weakened by limitations found in the clarification statements and assessment boundaries, which place arbitrary caps on the knowledge and skills that will be assessed each year, as well as the near-total absence of mathematical relationships and problem solving, and the avoidance of appropriate scientific vocabulary."

"Nothing in NGSS might form a basis for the standard high school physics course, much less preparation for an “advanced” course in physics." 

"We cannot discourse on the strengths of material that is absent."

3. Science appreciation, not science: One reviewer, Ze'ev Wurman testified before the Ohio House (http://educationnext.org/wurman-testimony-math-science-standards-ohio/)  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. Before-the-fact Training: All public school districts and charter schools were invited to send staff to a training at Weber State in the Fall of 2014, (6 months PRIOR to the grade 6-8 standards being presented to the State Board for public comment) 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?  

5. The adoption of the MOU for science test questions (just today) gives rise to similar concerns as the training.  Most of those states involved (I assume, since I was unable to find the MOU previous to today, and haven't had a chance to read it), will have similar standards, and it is my assumption these standards are NGSS.  As such, NGSS standards being used to write test questions leads to de facto standards adoption, whether Utah adopts NGSS or not.  What is tested is what will be taught.  We could keep our current science standards, but once we put NGSS test questions on our end-of-year tests, that is what will need to be taught to "prove" to the state our kids are learning.  

I don't mean to be rude or controversial, but from the time it was raised by Board Member Burningham in 2010 that adoption of one set of national standards (Common Core for English and Math) would lead to adoption of national standards in all the other areas, we have seen this occur.  There is no evidence that national standards yield better results than those that do not.  (It's about 50:50.)  What other standards did the science review committee look at?  And if no others, why not?  

Surely, there are many states that have science standards with a proven track record that are rated higher than Fordham's review of NGSS.  In 2013, there were 20 states with higher standards than NGSS, as well as the NAEP, TIMSS and ACT Frameworks.  Massachussetts' A-minus standards have, I believe, at least a 13-year track record and their tests are in the public domain.  (I know this is true for English and Math, but will be looking to find out for science.)  Are we interested in the BEST standards for our students, or do we want to have the SAME standards with most states?  For me, the answer is clear: I would like the best!  I have yet to find evidence (other than opinion) that NGSS will provide the best science education for our students.  

QUESTIONS THE BOARD SHOULD ANSWER FOR ALL STANDARDS

Here are the questions I would like to see asked by this Board for every set of standards, both existing and proposed.  I, personally, would appreciate receiving an answer to these questions, but understand if that isn't possible.  

The Burden of Proof to adopt new standards needs to be on you, as our elected State Board members.  Just because standards are "new" or the current standards are "old" isn't sufficient reason to assume that new is better.  Often, tried and true, is the best scenario.  

Additionally, since changing the math and English standards was voted down due to the hefty cost, why would we want to change other standards unnecessarily?  Or will these standards not incur any additional cost?  And if not, why not?  (Incidentally, as you go knocking on doors for campaigns, you don't hear "We need new science standards!"  You WILL hear tons of complaints about the math standards.  If there isn't a desire in the board to address the math standards that a large group of parents think is broken beyond comprehension, I think we should be very wary about changing something that the people don't think is broken, like science.  

1.) What is lacking in our current set of standards?  Please be specific; don't just say 'they need to be updated'.  With all due respect, if our previous standards were based on truth and objective fact, then, unless there have been changes, and science would be one of those areas where I would agree there are probably 'holes', there is no need to throw out the objective truth that we are already teaching.  Can we simply 'tweak' what we have now?

2.) What is the evidence that the proposed set of standards will be able to fill those gaps in our current standards?

3.) Have the proposed standards been either pilot-tested (for how long, what were the demographics, what were the metrics used to show improvement) or, as a baseline, benchmarked against other states or countries that we feel confident have been successful with this particular discipline?  (And what are those metrics?)

4.) Taken as a whole, over the course of 13 years, is there a prevailing worldview that emerges, and if so, is that worldview consistent with the diversity and the values of the citizens of this state? Do we seek to provide a broad, general knowledge, without influencing the attitudes, values, and beliefs of our students?  

5.) What are the pieces that are missing from the proposed standards?  For example, the NGSS do not address Life Systems, specifically body systems, or energy, or physics.  Climate change is heavily emphasized, but electric circuits are briefly mentioned.  While I appreciate both climate change and electric circuits being taught, it appears, at least to me, that there is an over-emphasis of one at the expense of others.  It is usually easier to find problems in things that exist.  It is much more difficult to take the time to determine what isn't even there.  

6.) Do the standards seek to obtain compliance of thought, instead of an understanding of the rationale and disagreements involved in controversial or politically charged issues?  This is especially important in science.  If we create a generation of students who believe that all science is not to be questioned, we have failed in our task.  Science is always to be questioned, and refined.  We should be constantly looking for ways to support or to disprove the current knowledge of the day.  

7.) Have you looked at some of the available curricular materials, as well as other states' implementations, to make sure that implementation of these standards, while supposedly wonderful in theory, won't fall flat in the application?  My past experience with the adoption of new standards and 'programs' (over the last decade) has been a trail of grand promises and disappointing results that are always blamed on local districts and teachers.  There has never been, or that anyone will admit, a set of bad standards.  It's always blamed on poor implementation.  With all due respect, if a set of standards can't be implemented successfully in at least 51% of the schools, then they should not be adopted, no matter what the claims and promises.  (Please see item #3.)

8.) Is there enough emphasis on fact and foundational knowledge?  There is a trend to focus on 'critical thinking' and to not get bogged down into rote memorization.  While I can appreciate and respect that position, it is impossible to have critical thinking about any issue without the foundational, factual knowledge of the subject.  Especially for children in the early grades who have limited abstraction and limited reasoning skills, are we allowing and encouraging those fact-based pieces of information that will form the foundation for greater understanding later on? 

9.)  Will these standards strengthen the parent-child relationship or hinder it?  For example, implementing standards that parents don't understand or that place them in a negative light vis-a-vis their child, no matter how great they are supposed to be, creates a rift between parent and child.  This is an unacceptable consequence for an education system that is supposed to be secondary and supportive to the primary role of the parent in educating his or her children.  The more involved parents are, the better the academic success of the child.  That is the number one factor in student success... the parent, not the standards.  We need to keep that in mind.  

Thank you for your time and effort, and my very great thanks if you made it all the way through this email.

Sincerely,

Wendy Hart

Mother

Alpine District Board Member (NOT speaking on behalf of my board) for ASD2

Business Owner

Highland, UT

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.  

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.

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

State Standards: Burden of Proof Rests on the State Board

Below is my letter to the State Board regarding the adoption of the NGSS standards for science in Utah.

IMPORTANT: Please make sure you comment on the science standards.  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 We were informed last Wednesday (May 6) that even though the comments are set up to discuss specific standards, we are free to include philosophical, process, and other concerns in our comments.  Please comment as soon as possible, as there is only a 90-day comment period. 

My Letter:

Dear State Board Members,

I am asking that you restart the entire process of science standards adoption.  There is a very real, very large deficit of public trust on the issue of standards.  While I appreciate the parent review committees and the public comment periods, it really is the perception that this was a 'done deal'.  The subsequent release of the Fine Arts standards that are identical to the national fine arts standards indicates a desire by either this Board or the USOE or both to completely align everything we do to a national set of standards created by a national set of 'supposed' experts in these fields.  The assumption that national (or broadly-adopted) standards are inherently superior is flawed, as is the assertion that a lack of national (or broadly-adopted) standards will  prohibit individual students to grow up to be successful, educated individuals.  Some high-performing nations have national standards, but about the same number do not. 

Here are some of my concerns and requests.

The most major concern is that of creating uniformity and centralization.  Education is not something that can or should be standardized.  We like to think that there are certain basics that all kids should know, and there may be, but they are very broad and many must keep the individual child in mind.  In point of fact, that is why we have teachers...to customize and personalize this process of every individual.  Our system of education has been extremely successful when we harness the power of the individual, and not try to fit everyone into the same mold.  I realize with accountability measures, this is a very difficult thing to do.  But it doesn't get easier when we buy into the idea that we will be left behind if we don't keep up with the national standards group du jour.   While that may be true, we will never have the opportunity to excel either.  And, I'm afraid, that is the intent.  When we have no risk, we have no chance of failure, but we have no chance of success either.  Centralization removes the flexibility of adaptation and change.  Even if we have the power to change, in a few years, we will lack the ability due to SAT, GED, ACT and textbooks all aligning.  We have to be completely sure that these are the very best standards and that we will NEVER want to change without the rest of the states going along. 

Additionally, adopting national or broadly adopted standards has been touted as allowing teachers greater resources.  I have heard this repeated over many years as justification for national or frequently adopted standards.  We have felt slighted in the past for having had our own standards.  However, I hope you understand that in trying to find non-CC textbooks and materials, right now, it is virtually impossible.   You have to order out-of-print materials and lots of things on eBay.  Common Core was officially adopted by 46 state only 5 years ago.  So, while you may have a lot of materials to choose from that are aligned to CC, they are really shades of gray.  Bright colors and pastels no longer exist.  There are no laboratories of education that are trying different ideas and finding success or failure.  There is no compelling free-market interest to create or to continue to supply textbooks and teaching materials to the small private and homeschool market and the 5 states that didn't sign on to Common Core.  It's a boon for the textbook suppliers--one set of standards equals one set of teaching materials that can be moved around and modified, but, ultimately, stay the same.  (Bill Gates predicted as much, and was quite excited about it.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=323WQrPHslg )  It has been suggested that because of this lack of resources, we MUST align our standards to those of other states.  With all due respect, we will then be hastening the demise of diversity and options.  We are walking directly into that trap and helping set the bait for others. 

At the end of the day, each of you has the burden of proof, as our elected representatives, to explain the following to us, the parents and citizens of Utah, for every set of standards that you adopt. 

1.) What is lacking in our current set of standards?  Please be specific; don't just say 'they need to be updated'.  With all due respect, if our previous standards were based on truth and objective fact, then, unless there have been changes, and science would be one of those areas where I would agree there are probably 'holes', there is no need to throw out the objective truth that we are already teaching.  Can we simply 'tweak' what we have now?

2.) What is the evidence that the proposed set of standards will be able to fill those gaps in our current standards?

3.) Have the proposed standards been either pilot-tested (for how long, what were the demographics, what were the metrics used to show improvement) or, as a baseline, benchmarked against other states or countries that we feel confident have been successful with this particular discipline?  (And what are those metrics?)

4.) Taken as a whole, over the course of 13 years, is there a prevailing worldview that emerges, and if so, is that worldview consistent with the diversity and the values of the citizens of this state? Do we seek to provide a broad, general knowledge, without influencing the attitudes, values, and beliefs of our students? 

5.) What are the pieces that are missing from the current standards?  For example, the NGSS does not address Life Systems, specifically body systems, or Computer Science.  Climate change is heavily emphasized, but electric circuits are briefly mentioned.  While I appreciate both climate change and electric circuits being taught, it appears, at least to me, that there is an over-emphasis of one at the expense of others.  It is usually easier to find problems in things that exist.  It is much more difficult to take the time to determine what isn't even there.  (This concept is why the request to point out the standards one doesn't like doesn't work.  I can point to those I don't like, but I can't point to those that do not exist but should.)

6.) Do the standards seek to obtain compliance of thought, instead of an understanding of the rationale and disagreements involved in controversial or politically charged issues?  This is especially important in science.  If we create a generation of students who believe that all science is not to be questioned, we have failed in our task.  Science is always to be questioned, and refined.  We should be constantly looking for ways to support or to disprove the current knowledge of the day. 

7.) Have you looked at some of the available curricular materials, as well as other states' implementations, to make sure that implementation of these standards, while supposedly wonderful in theory, won't fall flat in the application?  My past experience with the adoption of new standards and 'programs' (over the last decade) has been a trail of grand promises and disappointing results that are always blamed on local districts and teachers.  There has never been, to my knowledge, a set of bad standards.  It's always, we are told, just poor implementation.  With all due respect, if a set of standards can't be implemented successfully in at least 51% of the schools, then they should not be adopted, no matter what the claims and promises.  (Please see item #3.)

8.) Is there enough emphasis on fact and foundational knowledge?  There is a trend to focus on the 'critical thinking' and to not get bogged down into rote memorization.  While I can appreciate and respect that position, it is impossible to have critical thinking about any issue without the foundational, factual knowledge of the subject.  Especially for children in the early grades who have limited abstraction and limited reasoning skills, are we allowing and encouraging those fact-based pieces of information that will form the foundation for greater understanding later on?

9.)  Will these standards strengthen the parent-child relationship or hinder it?  For example, implementing standards that parents don't understand, no matter how great they are supposed to be, creates a rift between parent and child.  This is an unacceptable consequence for an education system that is supposed to be secondary and supportive to the primary role of the parent in educating his or her children.  The more involved parents are, the better the academic success of the child.  That is the number one factor in student success... the parent, not the standards.  We need to keep that in mind. 

Having attended the Provo meeting last night, I heard a lot of promises and things that sounded really good.  I have heard all those things as they relate to Common Core and Investigations Math.  In both instances, the promises did not materialize.  Please do not adopt standards based on promises.  Please adopt standards based on fact, and knowledge, and proof, not just the opinion of 'experts'.  Sometimes 'experts' are wrong or have their own agendas too.   

The burden of proof is not on the people to show that the standards are bad, or wrong, or insufficient.  It is up to you to demonstrate to us that adopting these new standards will provide the opportunity for each, individual student in Utah to live up to their potential, to be free to choose their own direction in life. 

Thank you for all the long hours that you spend in our service and your willingness to listen, even when we disagree.  It is greatly appreciated. 

Sincerely,

Wendy Hart
Mother of 3
Highland, UT
Board Member, Alpine School District, Alpine/Cedar Hills/Highland
Business Owner

*********************************
Additional thoughts on the NGSS.

As mentioned in my last post, the NGSS are controversial because

1) They are rated lower (C) than our current science standards  (B) by Fordham Foundation (who regularly rates standards).  This is important because Fordham is a big supporter of Common Core and all things national standards-like.  I think it's important to note, in the Fordham review, the specific concerns, rather than just the grade overall. 

2) These standards were developed by Achieve, Inc., the same group that gave us the Common Core standards

3) These 'national' standards will allow us to use the same tests for science as a lot of other states; thereby ensuring that Utah no longer has control over what we teach in our classrooms, since the testing will dictate what is taught. The biggest problem with all these 'national' concepts is the idea that there is one single set of standards that everyone, everywhere should be taught and that whomever developed these standards (Achieve, Inc.) is the repository of all that is good and right with education.  Science is science, and we should have no dissent, debate, or discussion.  Furthermore, if parents have concerns with what their children are being taught, it is because, as one U of U professor said, they are 'Luddites'.

4) These standards are touted as being able to guarantee that we are not left behind in Utah.  Just an interesting side note, Utah is one of a handful of states that provides the ACT to all Juniors.  (What that means is that our scores will be lower than those states where students self-select whether or not to take the ACT.)  Of those states that test 100% of their students, Utah scores higher than any of them on the science portion of the ACT.  Utah also has a higher science score than the national score overall, including all those states where only the 'smart' kids decide to take the test.  So, the idea that we are 'falling behind' other states, doesn't seem to add up.  At least not by this measure.  And there is no evidence that these standards will make us even better....None.

and finally..

5) The State of Kansas was recently involved in a lawsuit over these standards on First Amendment grounds because it was alleged that these standards (taken as a whole, not just specific standards) and the required evidence of mastery would prohibit a theistic world view.  And this is where the "Luddite" comment is coming from.  The thinking is that if you oppose these standards, it is because you are a religious zealot who doesn't want your child to understand real science.  It's not that you want to have science left open to what we know and what we don't know without promoting or dismissing one worldview over another.  School should not be teaching religion, but it should not be anti-religious either. If we teach a worldview that prohibits a belief in a Creator, then are we not, essentially, teaching religion?  We are told that with these new standards, our kids will know how to ask questions better.  However, if you read all the materials, you find that the questions our kids will be asking will be limited and directed into a particular worldview.  77% of the population of the US considers themselves Christian.  Why is it necessary to prohibit this worldview in a science class?  Why must any worldview be adopted in science class?  Why can't we just provide for what we know, what we don't know, and teach the scientific method?  And we should NEVER, EVER try to convince children that science is settled, that there is no room for questioning or that there are only a certain set of appropriate questions.  But that's what I see.  We are using the cover of science to manipulate the beliefs and values of our kids, not to teach them how to become scientists or to understand the world around them. 

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 ....!