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.  

Middle School Requirements: To Speak or Not To Speak

"Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act."
--Dietrich Bonhoeffer


Last month, the State Board of Education held a hearing on the changes to the middle school course requirements.  This rule change didn't eliminate anything, but it allows for local school boards to determine, other than English, Math, Science and History, which courses are required for 7th and 8th grade.  In talking with many other board members throughout the state, they don't expect to change any of the requirements on a local level hardly at all.  The one thing the rule change does allow is for local boards to craft policies that granting legal exceptions to the those requirements for individual students.

If you support this rule change, please take 1 minute to send the State Board members a quick note TODAY along those lines: board@schools.utah.gov.  The State Board will be discussing this rule Thursday, Oct. 12 at their monthly board meeting.

The education establishment groups do not want this level of local control.  They are afraid that you and I will choose...poorly...so we must be commanded and forced to do what they think is best for our children.

A parent group, of which I was a member, participated in the hearing. This is a copy of our statement to the board.  Please note: none of us was speaking on behalf of our respective organizations.


*********************************************************

Thank you for taking the time hear our convictions on rule R277-700.

We, parents, are in favor of the new rule R277-700, allowing local school boards greater flexibility in determining middle school course requirements. This rule shows trust in our local school boards and our parents. This rule returns local control to our boards, but most importantly, this rule does NOT remove music, art, PE, health or world languages. This rule gives power back to the local level and to the people they represent. It is scary to trust others to make decisions when we are used to having those decisions made at the state level. But fear of local control is a fear of free people making their own decisions.

Freedom brings risk. But this Board has shown a desire to return that freedom back to the parents through their local boards. It can be assumed that those in Davis or Jordan may not agree with the level of PE or arts that those in Rich or Alpine decide. The districts may disagree with what the charters have determined. Freedom brings with it great responsibility. But it also brings great potential for success, far greater than a one-size-fits-all education system. Rep. Rob Bishop has said about public education, Ever since ...the mid-sixties, ... we've been consistently fighting that battle over standardization versus freedom. Freedom should be our goal." We echo his sentiment. And we are grateful that the majority of this Board agrees that Freedom should be our goal.

As parents, we are at a disadvantage, in that, we do not have a formal group with paid employees to represent our interests. We do not have marketing groups who will send out petitions and emails to amass people to our cause. We do not have the luxury of thousands of people in our organization with contact information who can be rallied at a moment's notice to speak up about a particular rule. We are simply citizens. We are the people you were elected to represent.

While not speaking for the groups we participate in, the majority of us are members of various local school boards (Alpine, Davis, Jordan, Rich, Timpanogos Academy, Maeser Academy). We are also current and former members of PTAs, SCCs, and various parent organizations. We are accountants, teachers, programmers, designers, musicians, and social workers. But, more importantly, we are parents. And we know our individual children better than anyone.

Those of us who are local board members are excited for the trust we have been given. We love the arts! We appreciate PE! We think CTE courses, health, and languages are extremely beneficial. We thrill at the thought of education being for the benefit and improvement of each, individual child. We are not motivated to change the middle school course requirements much, if at all, from what the state has had these many years. But we support this rule change because it allows us to legally make exceptions for those students who need them.

While this may appear to be a theoretical discussion, the impact of this policy is taking place around us as we speak. Here are some examples.

Emma has severe food allergies. She was required to take a CTE class that included a foods course, putting her in medical danger. Taylor is a child in foster care who has been abused. Changing in a PE locker room causes him trauma every day. Taylor would do better in his other courses if he didn't have to go through the difficulty of changing for PE class. Brandon has ADHD. He needs to take a PE class every day to do well in his academic classes. Taking two PE classes makes it harder to have open class periods for other electives of interest, instead of just required courses. Savannah is in a community symphony program which requires her to take orchestra in school. This limits her ability to take other courses that are not required. Jordan is heavily involved in karate outside of school four days per week. He wants to take drama, band, Spanish, and choir, but he can't take all of them because he requires PE. Trina signed up for dual language immersion in first grade. All these years later, she is required to take two language courses instead of the one that was originally required when she first committed to the immersion program. Her mother is a social worker and knows the health course would just be a repeat of what Trina already understands. She'd like to take a non-required course for fun. Justin has special needs. Being required to take PE and fine arts classes like choir or band adds greater stress to his life. His success with his other courses would be improved if he didn't have to cope with the additional stress of these required courses.

While the names of these students have been changed, their situations are real. These are experiences of real students in real schools in our state. We believe the majority of students will still need and find the current middle school requirements to be a good balance for their lives. However, for those parents with students like these who need greater flexibility, we support letting local boards find ways to make exceptions.

We also support this rule change because it highlights a very important principle: Local Control. The best decisions are made at the level closest to those who are impacted. Everyone seems to advocate for local control during elections, but this is the point where local control can be supported or defeated. Do we trust our local school boards to create policies that benefit their communities? Do we trust the parents of our students to decide for each individual child what is in their best interests? Or do we want to give up that responsibility and tell these parents, that we're sorry, there's nothing we can do to help their child?

We wonder why parents aren't as involved, and this is, in part, why. Sure, they can volunteer for the Valentine's party in the classroom. But when it comes to deciding what courses their child needs and what that child should focus on, do we defer to others, far away, from that child? Do we not believe individual parents can and should have the option of working this out at the local level?

State law acknowledges this fundamental truth: parents are primarily responsible for the education of their own children. They are the experts of their children, and it is up to those of us on local school boards to represent them and to allow them the necessary flexibility in this area. While there may be ways via IEP's and 504's to individualize requirements, why can we not simply support, as local school boards, a well-rounded set of experiences? But when that doesn't apply, let us trust those parents who need exceptions for their kids to simply ask for them. Why are we so afraid to trust the people who know their children the best: the parents?

Thomas Jefferson stated in 1816: “the way to have good and safe government, is not to trust it all to one, but to divide it among the many, distributing to every one exactly the functions he is competent to.”

Trust us! Allow us, as local board members and parents, to make the determination for those children who will not be as successful being forced to fit into a pre-determined box. For many kids, the range of experiences we currently have will be beneficial and helpful. But for those who will experience negative consequences, we should be wanting and willing to allow that level of flexibility.

We ask for your trust. Trust that we will defend and protect the variety that currently exists: physical education, fine arts, health, world languages. Trust, also, that we will allow individual parents and guardians to make the call to aid their individual children with special needs, with specific challenges, with greater gifts in need of additional focus, with individual concerns. We either trust parents and want to empower them through their local boards or we don't. This rule change to R277-700 gives us back that trust. Let us not be afraid of freedom! Thank you for trusting us.

Wendy Hart, Parent

Paula Hill, Parent

Brian Halladay, Parent

Phillip Cardon, Parent

Rachel Thacker, Parent

Bryce Huefner, Parent

Matt Throckmorton, Parent

Liz Mumford, Parent

Julie King, Parent

Robin Allred, Parent

Alyson Williams, Parent

Darrell Robinson, Parent

Mona Andrus, Parent

Julie Tanner, Parent

Support Local Control

"The supreme principle of liberty suggests that it is better to risk erring in the direction of allowing too much rather than too little freedom." --W.H. Hutt

One of the main principles I have championed is Local Control of our schools.  Recently, the State School Board changed their rules on Middle School course requirements.  Each district is still obligated to provide the elective courses like PE, fine arts, languages and health, but each district is now allowed to set those requirements at the local level instead of being dependent on the state.

News outlets have characterized this as eliminating Music and PE from middle school.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  The local school boards (like Alpine's) now have the opportunity to decide what courses our community wants to require (outside of the state-mandates ones of English, Math, History, and Science).  This is what Local Control looks like!

My personal belief is our local board will adopt something similar to what is already required.  However, it will allow us to put a policy in place to accommodate exceptions for students who need them.  Up until now, students were obligated to be treated the same, even IF there were legitimate reasons for wanting an exception.  (A child with sever food allergies, still had to take the CTE class that included foods, for example.)

Please take 30 seconds to sign this petition in support of this new flexibility for local school boards and our students.  Then please share with 5 of your friends!  https://www.change.org/p/utah-state-school-board-support-utah-middle-school-flexibility-and-local-control/nftexp/ex5/control/772398820?recruiter=772398820&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=share_for_starters_page&utm_content=ex5%3Acontrol

The Utah Education Association and other groups have filed a request for a hearing to contest this new rule.  They have paid lobbyist and marketing people who are supported by dues-paying members.  The rest of us average parents just have blogs and social media.  If you think local control is worth it, then please sign and share this petition.  A handful of us local parents and board members have requested to participate as well in order to speak in favor of this rule change.  A hearing has been scheduled for Wednesday, Sept. 20 @ 5pm at the State Board Offices in Salt Lake.  Please share your support.

For more information, see my previous blog post here.

Here is a screen shot of the changes.

Note: "an LEA board [that's Alpine School District] may: require a student to complete additional courses; or set minimum credit requirements."

Local control allows us to trust our local boards, our local teachers, and our parents!  We do not need to be told what to do at the state level for fear we will choose incorrectly.  If our board chooses incorrectly, then YOU can hold us accountable.  (And that's much easier than at the state level.)

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.

Just When You Thought It Was Safe to Focus Closer to Home

Tonight (Thursday, April 14, 2016), the State Board's Finance Committee will be discussing a request to expand their data collection to include addresses for every public school student in Utah.  Currently, the local boards/charters do not send address information to the State.  (There is, arguably, some information sent as part of the transcript program, according to one board member.)

Here is a link to the memo about this change: http://www.nga.org/cms/home/news-room/news-releases/page_2009/col2-content/main-content-list/title_common-core-state-standards-development-work-group-and-feedback-group-announced.html

My problem is this is such a horrible idea, I can't even imagine why this isn't a non-starter.  Of course, as a database analyst, I completely understand how easily this additional information could be compromised or used to correlate additional information from other databases. I would like to state for the record, again, there is no longer any data privacy on students.  There are too many databases, with too many pieces of information to assume that much of anything is private anymore.

But most people aren't concerned about data privacy.  The question, though, is more fundamental: Who Is In Charge?  or rather: Who Should Be In Charge?  That answer is parents.  We have never, in the history of the world, been in a situation where so many unknown entities had access to so much information on our children and were empowered to use that information to make determinations about our child's "best interest" without going through those who know them best and love them, or in more and more cases, who have ever even met them.  Our children are reduced to data points, human capital, figures in a ledger (or a database), dots on a graph.  They are proficiency scores or the reason a school is getting a low grade.  It is truly hard to assume we are talking about living, breathing, human children anymore.  

The thing that sticks in my craw is the memo states that the changes to allow address collection 'could be done easily within a week.'  Why that infuriates me so much is that two years ago, my then State Board Member addressed the issue of student privacy and opting out of SAGE with then-associate superintendent Judy Park.  The issue was that if my child is not taking SAGE, all his/her data is uploaded to the SAGE database on the testing-vendor, AIR's servers.  So, despite my desire to protect my student's private information, AIR has everything on them except their test answers anyway.  It would be a simple procedure to create a button on every local student database that I'm aware of to allow parents to check whether or not they wanted their kids opted out of SAGE. If they opted out, then the UTREX and any other process could be modified (I could personally do it in 5 minutes...and offered...for free) to exclude that information from going to AIR.  But now, because this is something that the bureaucracy likes, it can be done in a week.

But back to addresses, there are a couple of reasons as to why this is a bad idea besides the data proliferation and the fact that the USOE really should have no right to the level of information on my kids than it already has.

The argument in favor is two-fold.  

1) Some charter schools are not properly reporting their students' District of Record (DOR).  This has financial consequences for the districts.  However, unless kids are starting out at the charters in Kindergarten, the districts are already aware of kids moving to charters, through academic record requests, etc.  If the charters are doing it wrong, then the State Board is authorized (since it is state law) to create a policy with penalties for non-compliance.  Target those who aren't doing it right, instead of asking everyone to submit to more supervision by the state.

2) The AG's office wants to have this information to find out if there are kids at home when they serve No-Knock warrants.  I'm pretty sure there are already legal means (subpoena's etc) that would allow them to get this information from the local district.

In short, I'm much more comfortable with this information staying at the local district level and even being tracked at that level, rather than at the state level. 

Here are some additional concerns with this change.

Foster parents/Custody battles/Domestic Abuse: There are some sensitive situations with certain families where errors at the local level are just compounded at the state level.  Arguably, the local school will know the ins and outs of a sticky family situation, e.g. kids in foster care, and loss of custody by biological parents.  Given that, they would be able to screen any potential issues before giving access to everyone who is associated with that child's record, even if it may not have been classified correctly.  (A friend has experienced this exact situation, so it's not that things like this don't happen.)  At the state level, it is just names, faces, addresses.  There is no context, and so, there are situations where information could be shared, improperly, with the wrong people, causing serious harm.

Security: Right now, to get student address information for a hacker or an ad guy, you have to hack all the different districts' and charters' systems.  You'd have to be very interested in order to do so.  At the state level, it's a single database.  Which are you going to choose?  The more information the state has, the greater a target it places on our kids' information. 

Family Engagement Plans: Conveniently, the new replacement for No Child Left Behind includes the requirement for a state Family Engagement Plan.  (Irreverent commentary from a leftist education blogger found here.) The federal plan recommends home visits for every child.  This will make it very easy for the state, should they choose to follow the federal plan, to already have addresses.  I find it not the least bit ironic that when former State Superintendent Martell Menlove was asked about data privacy at the state level, he used the example of those kids who got perfect ACT scores. He wanted to send them a congratulatory letter, and he had to contact each local district to be able to send those letters to the students.  This was his 'proof' about how little information the state collects on your kids.

Third-party sharing: FERPA (The Federal Education Rights and Privacy Act) modified the requirements for sharing data with a third-party.  As long as you can justify it as being for an 'educational program', data can be shared with any third-party without parental knowledge or consent.  If the data is kept at the local district/charter level, then parents need to make sure the locals are not sharing this data.  Once we, the locals, send it to the state, then parents need to make sure the locals and the state keep their children's data private.  Is it easier to control your locally-elected officials and administration or the state-level ones?

Email the State Board of Education (board@schools.utah.gov) and ask them to leave address information at the local level where it belongs.  Even better, come to the public comment portion of the board meeting tomorrow (Friday, April 15) @ 8am.  To sign up in advance for public comment, contact Board Secretary Lorraine Austin (lorraine.austin@schools.utah.gov or 801-538-7517) prior to the day of the meeting, or sign up at the meeting by 8:00 a.m. Priority will be given to those that sign up in advance.